NoFeeBoards.com!

Hey hocus! I didn't mean to leave y'all out of this :o I just have so little knowlege of what the analysis has been (over several years, I understand) and I'm so old and decrepit that reading all the stuff would shorten my life by x years ... or is it N years? Anyway, I'd be happy to wait for whatev...

John, if you put together a post with the ideas and links involved (or e-mail me the text, if you'd like) , I'd be happy to put them into my "standard format" (with my %#$@!* sidekick who asks probing questions) with a note that they are based upon your NFB posts (or the text that you send...

P.S.
If you belive that the SWR analysis is important, then it may (who knows?) get a wider audience:

http://www.nedstatbasic.net/s?tab=1&link=3&id=3014409

John: For years (while writing hundreds of tutorials) I've often wished I could ask the authors (of the various articles) if they would write a tutorial that the simple-minded investor could understand (without the jargon). However, lacking the guts to make such a request, I struggled with the dozen...

Mike: The use of ARCH (or GARCH) is to modify (on a daily basis) the volatility of a stock in order to reflect current conditions. That would include momentum and, certainly, dramatic changes in volatility. Since the scheme involves random variables it wouldn't be non random. hocus2004: I'd be happy...

OOPS! I should have said the 2003 Nobel prize was awarded for ARCH. The G came years later :? Try as I might, I can't find any useful application of ARCH (or GARCH). Most of the literature seems to be replete with mathematical machinations. (I have my own simple-minded ritual to incorporate volatili...

The 2003 Nobel prize in economics was awarded for (among other things) GARCH, a mechanism for predicting future volatility, based upon recent historical data. If somebuddy says GARCH, one is tempted to respond "Bless you" :D Anyway, GARCH (which stands for Autoregressive Conditional Hetero...

There once was a GREAT forum that I and hundreds of others visited several times each day. There were also a set of "rules" which implied courtesy etc.. After a few years many of the posters became nasty, foul language became a popular tool - implying a lack of communication skills :? Then...

About six months ago, when I fired up my new website, I discovered that it came with a Bulletin Board :^) I defined just two topics: Test Forum and Just Comments (about things that amuse or frustrate or intrigue ... or just make you laugh). After a millisecond of cogitation (and reflecting upon the ...

Ben : For A, we can look at the specifics of the retiree's portfolio, her age and life expectancy ... That sounds eminently reasonable, which makes me wonder how one can generate any rational "formula" for SWR that applies to the masses, as is often done %^$#*!? For B I think we can gener...

At the risk of becoming wearisome, here's yet another Sam and Sally story :D The year is 1929 and all the gurus are predicting that the market will continue its meteoric rise. In October, an Ohio economist says that prices will remain high for years to come, a Yale economist says that increased earn...

Although I've seen umpteen SWR discussions and a jillion opinions and several methods of calculation, I don't recall EVER seeing any indication of who is going to use this SWR ... generated by whatever method :? (A) Is it the retiree , generating some number which will tell her how much to withdraw ...

I suggest that you find alternatives to gummy's tongue-in-cheek suggestion. That may be appropriate at the Motley Fool, but not here.

Good idea.

... if you are investing 40% of your salary ... things are not quite so grim

Quite true

What's scary is that, with 30 years of investing at 6% and 3% inflation/salary increases and 4% withdrawal rate (at retirement) to give 75% of your current salary (at retirement), a ballpark estimate suggests that you'll have to invest about 40% of your salary each year to achieve that goal ^#$%@!? ...

John: Thanks for finding the error !!! In a nutshell: The terms in gMS are products of ratios like InflationFactor/GainFactor (as you've pointed out). For lognormal distributions the Expected Value of such a ratio is: M = I / exp(m-s^2/2) (InflationFactor/AnnualizedReturnFactor) That gives: gMS = M...

Although I have no idea whether there's an error (errors?),
here's a neato formula which gives the Maximum Rate of Withdrawal:


M = Mean Portfolio Return
S = Standard Deviation
i = (1+InflationRate)
n = Years until you drop dead, (after retirement)

... and all this without Monte's help

Hey John!
Thanks for the comments.

Just got back from a few days in New York, visiting our son.
Now, back to work!

Ozark also says:
"There's lots of stuff we can learn by studying the past ..."
Amen!

P.S.It was the discussion that followed Ozark's post that prompted:
http://home.golden.net/~pjponzo/past-future.htm

There's a fella on Morningstar who calls himself Ozark. I have a great deal of respect for his opinions. Here's an interesting post:

http://home.golden.net/~pjponzo/Ozark.htm

P.S. Ozark wasn't talking about anybuddy on this board