FRH #2 Certanity and future Safe Withdrawals

Financial Independence/Retire Early -- Learn How!
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

FRH #2 Certanity and future Safe Withdrawals

Post by ataloss »


Last edited by ataloss on Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Have fun.

Ataloss
therealchips
*** Veteran
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

Post by therealchips »

Thanks for collecting and distilling all that, ataloss. Your patience is astounding. :wink: At this point, at least twenty people have read your post but not commented. We may be overwhelmed.

Someone over at the other place said "Don't tell people they might have to accumulate even more than 25 times their annual expenses in retirement. That is so difficult to achieve that asking for even more will just discourage them." I don't remember who that was, only that I liked his posts.
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

Ataloss,

Great post! I think that in the next edition of Webster's dictionary they need to post a link to hocus' board under the defintion of "beating a dead horse'. :lol:
WiseNLucky
** Regular
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Florida

Post by WiseNLucky »

After spending an inordinate amount of time trying to explain things to hocus


I am almost amused to see ataloss actually at a loss :wink:

I say "almost" because I'm in the same boat. :shock:
WiseNLucky

I just wish everyone could step back and get less car and less house then they want, and realize they don't NEED more. -- NeuroFool
jimbo
* Rookie
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:14 am
Location: Washington State

Post by jimbo »

After spending an inordinate amount of time trying to explain things to hocus, seeing others fall into the same trap, and finding out that this was all done on the REHP board at TMF I thought it could be useful to condense some counterpoint to his statements. Here it is. Ataloss


WHY? What is your point in endless explainations of idiotic quotes from hocus?
wanderer
*** Veteran
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 9:33 am
Location: anytown, usa

Post by wanderer »

WHY? What is your point in endless explainations of idiotic quotes from hocus?

I suspect ataloss just wants to "set the record straight". One would think the outrageous claims would mercifully die, but that hasn't been the case.

What gives them some potency (and why his misrepresentations/misinterpretations probably should be "outed"), imo, is that i do think hocus is an unusual and highly useful (meant in a very good sense) thinker. I think understanding and verbalizing SWR issues has been a challenge for him yet he won't retract/withdraw the clearly erroneous pieces of his case. In a series of otherwise notable posts, JWR enables and excuses that which he should simply correct.

Perhaps hocus' biggest error is to construe the inhabitants of this board as being new paradigmistas, like those who unceremoniously threw him overboard at tmf. as a person headed toward a 1.6% WR, i'm pretty sure we're a much different animal here.
regards,

wanderer

The field has eyes / the wood has ears / I will see / be silent and hear
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

Perhaps hocus' biggest error is to construe the inhabitants of this board as being new paradigmistas, like those who unceremoniously threw him overboard at tmf

The FIRE community that congregates at the TMF board did not do this, Wanderer. I was indeed thrown overboard, but I was thrown overboard by a corporate body, Motley Fool. It is not the same thing.

There are differences between the community that congregates here and the community that congregates at the REHP board. But there are also smilarities. Some people here have made a mistake, in my opinion, in distancing themselves from their fellow aspiring FIREs that congregate at the other board. In general, they want the same things out of life that the people here want and they want to learn about the same things that the people here want to learn about. It is not a good idea to come to think of the community that congregates there as some sort of enemy camp, in my opinion.

Mazke started a new board at TMF a day or two ago as a place for people who want to discuss FIRE issues in peace. That board has generated over 100 posts from a large number of posters in just two days. I take that as strong evidence that my view of the other board community is the right one. Most people in that community want the REHP board to permit honest and informed posting on the subject matter. There are some who do not, but they are in a minority. This has been demonstrated over and over and over again by postings to the board.

One final data bit on this subject. A few days ago, intercst went to the Politcial Asylum board to solicit new posters for the REHP board. A poster at REHP put up a post complaining that this was not a good way to restore the board to health, and 99 community members have endorsed his complaint. What does that tell you?

People are people, Wanderer. People congregate in communities, and there are differences between the different sorts of communities formed. But the basics to a large extent remain the same. An aspiring early retiree is an aspiring early retiree, whether he or she happens to congregate here or at the REHP board. There are differences between the two boards, but we can never completely isolate ourselves from the influence of the other board. There are two boards, but there is really only one FIRE community. We are all in this together.
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

What is your point in endless explainations of idiotic quotes from hocus?
Because hocus is, very regrettably, dangerous to the very people he wants to help i.e. aspiring early retirees. His adamant adherence to his misrepresentations/misinterpretations/misconceptions is likely to be very misleading to many people trying to make sense of the financial issues of retirement. If he keeps repeating his erroneous views then somebody should keep correcting him. Ataloss has the patience to do so - unlike me :twisted:.
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

hocus wrote:

The FIRE community that congregates at the TMF board did not do this, Wanderer. I was indeed thrown overboard, but I was thrown overboard by a corporate body, Motley Fool. It is not the same thing.


I'm not sure I'd put all the blame on the TMF. You alienated most of the posters at TMF and are well on your way to doing the same here. You can't blame the TMF for that. Perhaps the problem isn't everyone else other than you. :wink:
There are differences between the community that congregates here and the community that congregates at the REHP board. But there are also smilarities. Some people here have made a mistake, in my opinion, in distancing themselves from their fellow aspiring FIREs that congregate at the other board. In general, they want the same things out of life that the people here want and they want to learn about the same things that the people here want to learn about. It is not a good idea to come to think of the community that congregates there as some sort of enemy camp, in my opinion.


I don't think that most of us see the "other board" as the enemy. I see it as a reflection of the board leader who is, by all accounts, narcissistic and bent on pushing a left-wing political agenda. The rare on topic threads over there are often shallow and amateurish compared to here. They can't hold a candle to us over here on the FIRE board on most substantive financial discussions, particularly those that center on market theory and SWRs. There are a few over there who are knowledgeable on these issues but not nearly as many as we have on our FIRE board.

BTW, I notice that the board proprietor over there keeps posting links to our board under the guise of "I was emailed this link...". LOL - What nonsense! He won't admit that it is him who keeps peeking in to see what's going on here.
One final data bit on this subject. A few days ago, intercst went to the Politcial Asylum board to solicit new posters for the REHP board. A poster at REHP put up a post complaining that this was not a good way to restore the board to health, and 99 community members have endorsed his complaint. What does that tell you?


It tells me that he is more interested in pushing his Bush-bashing socialist propaganda rather than starting on-topic discussions. I guess he feels that he needs to recruit some more left-wingers to aid and abet him with his daily political tirades. :lol:
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

I see it as a reflection of the board leader who is, by all accounts, narcissistic and bent on pushing a left-wing political agenda. The rare on topic threads over there are often shallow and amateurish compared to here. They can't hold a candle to us over here on the FIRE board on most substantive financial discussions, particularly those that center on market theory and SWRs. There are a few over there who are knowledgeable on these issues but not nearly as many as we have on our FIRE board.

This is all true and well stated.

The point that I am trying to make is that it is not the fault of the community that congregates there. The aspiring early retirees in the REHP board community are our friends. The bad apples who will not permit the community members there to have the discussions they want to have are not our friends. We do not need to make personal enemies of them, and it would be a waste of our energies to do so. But we have a right as a separate FIRE community to be distressed at what has been done to our sister board and to want to take steps to repair the damage.

It tells me that he is more interested in pushing his Bush-bashing socialist propaganda rather than starting on-topic discussions. I guess he feels that he needs to recruit some more left-wingers to aid and abet him with his daily political tirades.

Of course. He lost interest in the subject matter when his ideas on FIRE were tested in real world and failed the test. It's not much more complicated than that.

The logical thing that he should have done at that point was to start a new board called "Intercst's House of Political Chat." Is there anyone who would object to this? Motley Fool would love it, there would never be anyone complaining that the political stuff is off-topic, and those in the Motley Fool community who wanted to be able to discuss FIRE topics in peace would be able to do so.

It is one of my goals to make this happen. I have nothing against intercst. I have every reason in the world to want to have good relations with him. I would like him to put a blurb endorsing my book on the back cover. I feel no personal animosity towards intercst whatsoever.

I think that it would be better for the FIRE community and for intercst both if he would form a board to discuss the political stuff and just leave those of us who built up the REHP board as a resource for the advancement of ideas of how to achieve financial independence early in life in peace Why is it viewed as such a controversial idea to propose that he do this? If he wants to put up either political posts or on-topic at the REHP board from time to time, I have no objection to that. I think that would be fine. What I don't think is fine is for him to publicly declare that it is against the "board culture" there for a poster to put up FIRE ideas not in accord with his failed dogmas and thereby kill a valuable lesarning resource that was built through the efforts of hundreds of FIRE community members.

I personally devopted thousands of hours to building up that learning resource, and I do not like to see that effort flushed down the toilet because it hurts the feelings of one particular poster for the board to see that he got a number wrong in a study. We all make mistakes. When we make them in public, the thing that all of the rest of us do is come forward and acknowledge them and then everyone goes about his or her business.

Intercst doesn't like that idea. Well, you know what? Too bad. He made the mistake, I didn't make it for him. I never have tried to put any particular emphasis on the fact that he made a mistake. I offered many times to never mention either intercst or his study if he would just allow me one thread a month in which to discuss with other interested community members the realities of SWRs. There are a whole bunch over there who have expressed interest. I had several SWR posts with in excess of 80 recs, and there were dozens of posts put up in which people said that they viewed the SWR discussions that I initiated as the most interesting discussions that had been held at that board in a long, long time.

Why should the interests of those 90 people be ignored? Those people have rights. They signed up to post at a site that has explicit rules protecting them from intercst type posters. The rule say that the intercst tactics "will not be tolerated." at the Motley Fool site,. He knew about these rules when he signed up, and clicked the "I accept" box.

Motley Fool collects money from people who participate at their boards and they make a promise in return for receipt of that money to enforce the site's published rules. I relied on that promise when I made a decision to devote thousands of hours of my life to building up that site. Other posters on that board did the same. My understanding from some law review articles is that the site's Terms and Conditions constitutes a legally binding contract with those who sign up. My removal from the site was a violation of that contract. I never broke a rule in my posting there, and Motley Fool has never said that I broke a rule.

Do you think that the 90 community members there who expressed an interest in entering a discussion with me about the realities of SWRs have a right to see that contract honored? I do. That community of people is the community of people that I write for when I write about FIRE. That community matters to me. The REHP board is a clown board today. But it is not a clown board because the aspiring early retirees who congregate there are dumb or evil or anything else. It is a clown board because the community that congregates there has had its desire to discuss the subject matter in a reasoned way denied to it.

Allow that community to have reasoned discussions once again about the subject matter of the board, and the things you say above will no longer be true. Allow the community to explore the issues, and the community will generate thousands of amazing new insights, just as it did in the past. Allow this, and that community will help this community grow and thrive and succeed. It is one community. That does not now appear to be the case because great damage has been done to the workings of the comunity over there. Poison has been poured into the water supply. But that is not the fault of the aspiring early retirees who congregate there.

We need to distinguish between the people who meet there, who can be a great asset to us in building this board, and the people who hijacked the board in pursuit of their own personal agendas. When you are thinking of what can be done to grow this board, the logical thing to do is to ask "where did we get most of our best posters?" The obvious answer is that we got most of our best posters from Motley Fool. That's the logical place where we should be going to get more great posters.

There is a new raddr over at the Motley Fool site right now. And a new Wanderer, and a new JWR1945 and a new FoolMeOnce and a new Ataloss and a new ES and a new hocus and a new PeteyPerson and on and on. All of these people exist and they exist at the TMF site.

What do you think are the chances they are going to find their way here, given the state of the REHP board today? If any of those people ever are drawn to take a look at the REHP board because of somthing they see on the "Best Of" board, they are repulsed. The odds are strong that they never visit a second time. So they never learn that we exist and we never hear any of their insights. And we lose out on what we could have learned but didn't.

The obvious answer is to free that board for honest and informed posting on the subject matter it was created to address. Do that, and we help not just the people in that community. We help the people in this community too. It is a win, win, win, win, win. Who loses? Intercst? What does he lose? If he is not Board General anymore, what does that even mean? He can still post, can't he? What is it he can't do if he is replaced as Board General?

He can't engage in prohibited posting practices to block debates that the community wants to have but that he does not want it to have. That's it. If he loses the status of Board General, he has to play by the rules. Like everyone else. That's the way it should be, in my view. It's better for the entire FIRE communty if intercst is subjected to the same posting rules as everyone else.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

WHY? What is your point in endless explainations of idiotic quotes from hocus?

Hi jimbo,
I let the hocus quotes speak for themselves. You are free to try to correct/reform hocus if you wish. Good luck to you. You have been forewarned :wink:
Have fun.

Ataloss
User avatar
kathyet
Admin Board Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:00 am

Post by kathyet »

Even a new Hocus is over there but we all no that there really is only one: ES, Raddr,Wanderer,Ataloss, Jwr1945, PeteyPerson, and unfortu nut ly hocus.

Kathyet :roll:
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

WHY? What is your point in endless explanations of idiotic quotes from hocus?

I consider it to be baiting. It is despicable.

John R.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

WHY? What is your point in endless explanations of idiotic quotes from hocus?

JWR
I consider it to be baiting. It is despicable.


Look at this:
What the conventional analysis tells you, I believe, is the average SWR over a long period of time. If you properly calculated all the SWRs for each of the past 100 years, added them together, and then divideded by 100, I believe that the number you would get would be something close to 4. I guess it's good to know that number. But that number is not the SWR as defiined for purposes of SWR analysis.
hocus 7/21

People were shaking their heads about this hocusism at TMF. I asked him if it was a "typo" and gave him an opportunity to retract or modify his statement. he came up with this:

I stand by what I said on the "average SWR" question. I do not know for sure that the 4 percent number is the average SWR. I think it may be. That's what I said in the first post on which I commented on this aspect, and that is what I said when questions were raised about it at earlier times.

No one has yet put forward any reasons for thinking that the 4 percent number is not the average SWR. I am perfectly happy to take a look at any data that anyone has to put forward on this question. I am not able to add anything to what I have already said until someone puts forward some data on why they are so certain that the 4 percent number is not the average SWR.
hocus 7/23

He says he stands by his original statement but starts demanding to know the average of the maximal withdrawal rates. In the old days someone would be jumping to calculate this for him the original post would be forgotten and we would be on to new things. this is why your post from7/27 doesn't suffice:
hocus has been very up front about his not being a numbers guy. One frequently used big lie tactic has been to make hocus defend numbers. He does not generate them. He remembers them. He does not always remember all of the details exactly. He is always willing to defer to others regarding calculations.

Does it seem as if hocus is making a ridiculous statement? Yes. It is ridiculous to a numbers guy. But why did he get it wrong? hocus did not invent the definition. He remembered it and his memory was faulty. Why was his memory faulty?


I agree with you that hocus seems to say ridiculous things. The problem is that he "stands by them." This is what he intends to say.

I would consider it despicable to waste the time of people who are sincerely interested in financial independence/early retirement with nonsense. OTOH, hocus has his version of things.

Imagine if hocus would have retracted his statements about Bernstein and mathematical certitude of swr when first challenged. He could have simply admitted that he restated Bernstein. He would have found many of us agreeing with Bernstein that future returns and safe withdrawals would likely be lower. Instead dozens of pointless posts.

Hocus goes away for a while and returns with the same "ridiculous" ideas and engages in the same pointless exchanges. Wise people do this with him once. Some of us, thinking we could reform him, persist in trying to get him to see the light not realizing that he has his own definition of terms.

If people want to go to the swr research board and accept some definitions, fine.
a. invalid means whatever he says it means
b. that lower investment returns do not consititute a worse future
c. safe withdrawal rate means something other than a withdrawal rate that is safe

My idea with the FRH posts is that next time hocus returns from one of his absences and statrs the same discussion, I will have a response documenting the hocus position and an alternative.

I have tried to assume that hocus is sincere. I got this from webster.com
Main Entry: ho·cus
Pronunciation: 'hO-k&s
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ho·cussed or ho·cused; ho·cus·sing or ho·cus·ing
Etymology: obsolete hocus, n., short for hocus-pocus
Date: 1675
1 : to perpetrate a trick or hoax on : DECEIVE
2 : to befuddle often with drugged liquor; also : DOPE, DRUG <hocussed the favorite before the race>


Have I been hocused?
Last edited by ataloss on Mon Aug 11, 2003 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Have fun.

Ataloss
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

JWR1945 wrote:
WHY? What is your point in endless explanations of idiotic quotes from hocus?

I consider it to be baiting. It is despicable.

John R.


btw are you agreeing that the hocus quotes are idiotic?
Have fun.

Ataloss
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

I got this from webster.com

Atatloss
I like the definition - something I've always wanted to mention but chickened out - thought it might be too sensitive :roll:
Why would hocus choose hocus as a name - or is that bringing up semantics again?
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

Why would hocus choose hocus as a name?

The screen-name question came up a long time ago on the REHP board. It was brought up that time by a poster named Biggaloot, who in some other posts put up some insightful SWR research.

I chose the name when I first posted at the Motley Fool site. I would have put more thought into it if I had realized at the time how big a deal it was going to become in later years. It was a spur-of-the-moment decision.

The idea was to have a little fun with the Motley Fool concept. The "fool" is the court jester, someone who can tell the truth to the king and not get his head cut off for doing so. I think of a magician as a different sort of court performer, someone who entertains not by telling jokes but by performing feats inspiring wonder and surprise.

My goal with my writing career is to perform a kind of alchemy. All that a writer has to work with is words, which are pretty darn easy to come by. Words cost nothing and they are all about us in great volume. But it is possible by arranging words in a particular order on a page of paper or computer screen to create gold out of this material of seemingly little value.

My particular goal is to arrange words in such a way that they help people to achieve financial independence early in life and thereby live richer, fuller, more significant lives. That's the Big Idea at the root of my Life Project. It's all a grand magic trick.

That was the primary thought behind selection of my screen-name. I also liked it that it was short, and thus memorable. Finally, the word "hocus" sort of sounds like it could be a name. I don't know anyone who goes by that name, but it is not so far from something like "harry" or "remus" or some sort of combination of similar names. In addition to the magic trick thing, and the reference back to the Motley Fool concept, I like it that the name "hocus" is short and sounds like it might somewhere be someone's real name.

There's such a thing as good magic, don't you think? Not all tricks are bad, are they? I sure hope that's not the case. I have a lot of chips riding on my belief that there is such a thing in the universe as magical good things.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

In the very first post on this thread, ataloss claimed:
Notes:

1. Hocus has declined to provide the list of "all factors."
2. Slight overstatement :wink:
3. As if you could control future investment returns
4. Investment returns?
5. Bernstein is not talking about 95% future safety see quote above.

I would point out that hocus hasn't obviously renounced any of these misstatements. He assures me I would not have to guess on this matter:


ataloss is wrong on all of these points.

hocus got it right in every one of these examples.

I have just recently identified a major cause of the confusion on this matter. I have posted my detailed comments as an Addendum to the Summary Thread: SWR Definition. http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic ... 9725#p9725

In essence, ataloss has made the critical, logical error of judging the quality of a Safe Withdrawal Rate calculation on the basis of the actual outcome of later events.

Special note for Wanderer: hocus never wastes my time. Threads such as this do waste my time.

Have fun.

John R.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

jwr it amuses me to see you defending hocusisms such as
At the other extreme would be to say that you want to consider the effect of every possible factor that affects the safety of your withdrawal percentage. That would be very hard to do.


:)
Have fun.

Ataloss
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

ataloss is wrong on all of these points.

hocus got it right in every one of these examples.


Although I read the link I can't see where it addresses this at all. I did modify my previous post to soften it a little. I prefer not to say that hocus is making idiotic statements. The way I see it, hocus has his own terminology and definitions. You have to accept these to begin to make sense of what he is saying. My purpose in the FRH posts was clearly stated. The hocus position is stated with an alternative.

It seems that JWR1945 passionately believes that hocus is correct (by definition?) but would prefer to have some of the statements that hocus has made go away because he disagrees or can't defend them.I don't think hocus has a problem with these quotations.
If Ataloss puts up a post in which he quotes something I said in an earlier post, what need is there to respond? He is letting people know what I think on an issue. He doesn't agree, clearly, but nonetheless he is putting forward my ideas in my own words. I find nothing to fault in that. People can agree with my words or with his words. People can make up their own minds based on what they read on the screen. I think it is entirely possible that some of those posts will serve a constructive purpose when all is said and done.
hocus 8/9/03

JWR1945 may never be happy with my FRH posts but I guess that is his problem. I think they are a step in the direction of less wheel spinng wrt swr.
Have fun.

Ataloss
Post Reply