Performance Update for Colm Fagan's ARF

[Colm Fagan]

@Louisval
You wrote:

In summary, we have an experienced finance man seriously lagging a reasonable benchmark in his equity allocation.

I wrote:

Here is the same table, with an additional column added to show which fund was ahead at various year-ends:

At 10 of the 13 year-ends, my ARF (net of all charges) was ahead of the (completely theoretical) index tracker and the (equally theoretical) managed fund (before ARF provider and adviser charges). Thus, in every one of those years, I would have had to withdraw a smaller percentage of my fund in order to meet the regular withdrawal (which broadly increased in line with inflation), for which I was given no credit.

In summary, QED, to quote your buddy @Gordon Gekko

 

[Louisval]

Hi Colm,

Louisval feels vindicated by this.

As expected, you couldn't produce a single untrue fact. We're quite a long way away from the, presumably, very emotionally-charged "almost everything I wrote is untrue" - aren't we? [This last bit is rhetorical - I'm not dumb enough to ask you to admit you were wrong!]

To be perfectly honest, I found your penultimate post a little desperate but I tried to be measured and wanted to afford you the opportunity to, well, calm down and stick to the facts. You have now squandered that opportunity. As that excellent poster, Sarenco, sometimes says: you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. You were given the opportunity and have been found wanting!

I wish you well in your life but I'll not waste any more time engaging with you. That would not be a good use of my time. From observing your posting style, I know you'll want the last word - directly or indirectly. Observant observers of AAM will understand, I suspect, that last bit.


Now to address a genuine comment.

At a quick glance again at your post @Louisval My main gripe is your assertion that Colm's posts are supposed to be a guide for general public. This is factually incorrect, for a start.

I'm not totally certain what part of my posts you are referring to but I suspect it's this. Perhaps you can confirm.

I struggle to see how Colm's posts help Joe & Josephine Arfer in any practical way whatsoever! Can some of the posters who enjoy Colm's post explain how they believe Joe & Josephine benefit from these posts? I genuinely can't see it myself.

Frankly, I see these comments as more of an opinion (admittedly, a strongly held one) than a fact. So let me clarify. My opinion is that Colm's posts in this thread (about directly investing in shares) may be interesting but I, personally, don't see how they are of a practical benefit to the regular punter grappling with how best to invest his ARF. I would just add that I would be very interested in any sensible comments from "posters who enjoy Colm's post explain how they believe Joe & Josephine benefit from these posts". In this regard, it could well be that I'm missing something, that I've got the wrong end of the stick or that I'm not seeing the whole stick or something. If that be the case, I'll acknowledge it.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I don't understand your problem, Duke. No matter. Maybe go for a walk around the block?! Your choice of vocab seems a bit offensive also.

I just rang my mate in the pensions world who explained all things DWT in the context of Irish pension funds to me! He was surprised that you didn't take this into account when modelling the Alternate AE scheme or that you don't remember so doing? Seems like a fair observation to me.

What gave you the notion that I modelled AE? But I can assure you that DWT wouldn't be near the radar of anyone who did so. If you think that was a fair observation, your mate obviously went overboard in explaining all things DWT. Or maybe you were just "enjoying a brandy in your armchair" (quote, unquote).

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

To be perfectly honest, I found your penultimate post a little desperate but I tried to be measured and wanted to afford you the opportunity to, well, calm down and stick to the facts. I wish you well in your life but I'll not waste any more time engaging with you. That would not be a good use of my time.

You are obviously a Very Important Person, but perhaps not so objective as you pose.
A poster has embarked on a clear troll over some imagined and totally off topic gotcha on DWT and you have endorsed it with relish. I asked a genuine (yes unusual in this thread) question of you regarding how you allowed for distributions in your calculation of underperformance but you obviously prefer to jump on the imagined DWT gotcha.

 

[Hmm5673]

[..] My opinion is that Colm's posts in this thread (about directly investing in shares) may be interesting but I, personally, don't see how they are of a practical benefit to the regular punter grappling with how best to invest his ARF.

Do they need to be, though? I'd never in a million years do something like what he's doing, but it's interesting to read along with, and I don't think he was ever really representing it as "normal people should do this".

 

[Louisval]

I'd never in a million years do something like what he's doing, but it's interesting to read along with,

Totally agree

I don't think he was ever really representing it as "normal people should do this".

For the avoidance of doubt, I never said he was. Please confirm that you agree?!
Admittedly, what I said isn't a million miles away but the distinction is important. What I have consistently said is that I don't see how these posts benefit your typical ARFer. As of now - 2 days after posing that question - I still haven't been shown that particular light by anyone! That's all I'm saying - no more, no less.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

This has now been covered extensively. Nothing more can be gained except hassle for the moderators.