NoFeeBoards.com!

That's correct. "100% safe" in terms of the safe withdrawal studies means that the selected withdrawal rate survived all the pay out periods examined from 1871 to 2000 . If you are predicting that something worse than the crash of 1929, World War II, or the Reagan or Clinton presidencies,...

I agree that valuations could feasibly stay in the high range for a long time. But, starting from and staying at high valuations still means reduced return, because at high valuations the return from dividends is much lower: 1.7% (or so from the S&P now) vs. the average 4.5%. That unavoidable r...

I like using SWR analysis as a tool for assessing risk because it provides an objective data-based approach to the question. I still don't understand. If the "tool" is an objective function then you must have some specific calculations that spit out a number or numbers. Please share them ...

That depends on how the term "safe withdrawal rate" is defined. I am saying that it must be defined as the product of mathematical calculations performed on relevant data. Define it that way, and people will not be able to use SWR analysis to say things that are not so. If you are excessi...

It may be that the data does not support the 4 percent assumption. I honestly do not know. Nor do I. I'm pretty sure though that long term housing would rise roughly in line with inflation, i.e. close to zero real appreciation. If, for example, a house worth 100K today appreciates at a real rate of...

A final point that it might be a good idea to bring out now is that I assume a 4 percent real return on the value of my residence. I realize that this approach is not the one taken by many others. But I don't believe it is so unreasonable. I believe that my overall plan has enough safety featues th...

In the past, Hocus has taken intercst to task for lack of statistical significance in his results apparently (?) not realizing that regardless of the amount of historical data, application to the future is uncertain. I am not sure that he understands that the limitations in mc analysis. Specificall...

It appears to me that the swr for the 1870-2000 period is whatever intercst says it is. Actually, no. The reason is that he is assuming that you could've bought the S&P500 stocks as low cost index fund since 1871. Clearly, the costs of owning an index-like portfolio would've been cost prohibiti...

Is there a chance that there is some reason for the "lucky sequence" that isn't captured by your mean reversion technique? Sure, there's always that possibility. :wink: Would this mean that you can't provide 95% confidence intervals for applicabiility of the 3.55% swr to the future? Yep. ...

Quote: Your post noted one reason why the intercst claims don't work even if future returns are as good as past returns. The odds are good that the sequencing of returns will be less favorable. That's an extremely powerful point, in my view. Hocus, what are those odds exactly? Approximately 75-80%:...

The concept of SWR has saved a number of peoples' financial lives because the very recent conventional wisdom was withdrawals in the 7-10% range. Studies like the Trininty study and intercst's work showed that to be untrue. But to extend their work to apply it with certainty to the future would be ...

In a strange kind of way it is not that much of a setback. The people at the REHP are still obsessed with trying to ridicule hocus and all Safe Withdrawal Rate investigations at this board. I attribute that to their lack of ideas. But the more that they rant about how horrible we are, the more that...

It only took a few hours for one of the obsessed posters at the REHP to pounce on this topic: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19073659

Those people need to get a life. :lol:

hocus,

Like ES, I'm real sorry this happened. Did they give you any sort of rational explanation for terminating your posting priveledges?

JWR1945 wrote: wanderer will soon be a legend on these boards.

Have fun.

John R.

He already is a legend. Keep it coming, wanderer.

Hi ES, As you know, NFB is my home now and will stay that way as long as you are in charge. :D You also know that my primary interest is the FIRE board and in just 2-3 months of existence it is already the best such board on the 'net IMHO. As for the REHP, I can peek in but can't post there which I ...

raddr: They are very well aware of NFB over at the TMF REHP, in part due to controversy started by yours truly and the blasphemous "fawning admirers" post. LOL! :lol:Has that one been posted over here? I'd like to read it. Oh yeah, it was posted here: http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtop...

Hi ES, Our daily hit count is extraordinary! I'm perfectly satisfied at this point. Do you mind sharing the hit count data? I think it would be interesting. It seems like most boards have many more lurkers than actual posters.

Hi ES, They are very well aware of NFB over at the TMF REHP, in part due to controversy started by yours truly and the blasphemous "fawning admirers" post. :lol: I don't know if they know about us at the Index funds site but it might be worth one last post over there to remind them. :wink:

W, As usual, you're the voice of reason. :idea: I don't care if anyone crosslinks any of my NFB posts over at TMF if they find it to have substance or supports an argument that they are trying to make. I agree that a post of a personal nature shouldn't be crosslinked if it gives the appearance of su...