Hocus on wanderer's post on the "research" board

[ataloss]

I do not want to see comments like the one you made above appear at this board. They send the discussions off track and they waste the community's time. You have a responsibility to the community that meets here to hear honest and informed comments on SWRs to take some care re the accuracy of claims made or suggested in your posts. I have a responsibilty to police you and other posters to see that the discussions here do not degenerate in the way that they have degenerated at other boards participating in The Great Debate at earlier times.

the new board is off to a fine start

[raddr]

Sad to say, it doesn't surprise me. You won't find me over there. :lol:

[ataloss]

I have to look at some things even though I wouldn't participate

[raddr]

I have to look at some things even though I wouldn't participate

Great pics, LOL! :lol: I meant to say that I won't participate (post) but, like you, I do occaisionally peek in only to be reminded of why I've stayed away in the first place. :wink:

[wanderer]

I was wondering if anyone saw that. (zen koan: if a debate happens in a forest and there's no one around to hear/pay attention to/contest it, does it make any sound?)

I think I'll "police" myself. That way I avoid the added burden of having to thank hocus for all the tremendous 'insights' he has provided that make my life so much easier. :wink:

If hocus wants knowledgable readers to believe that he and jwr have not said they know what SWRs work at what PE10 levels, going forward, I think he'll have a tough case (of course, he invites readers to plow through his forensic diarrhea to verify his assertions :shock:).

Of course, the only way you can know that (for the future) is to know the expected return and volatility [actually you have to know {approximately} the exact sequence] for the future. And that really is progress.

[ataloss]

Although I wouldn't call hocus looney, I think I can see why some have.

I never appreciated Andy Kaufman's "comedy." I put hocus in the same category in terms of "swr experts."

[hocus]

Great pics, LOL!

I agree about the graphics. When I set up my web site (my target date is May 13, 2004), I am going to have to ask Ataloss for a copy of that "Invalid!" stamp he used over on the Gummy Stuff board. I might be able to work the police car in somewhere too.

I never appreciated Andy Kaufman's "comedy." I put hocus in the same category in terms of "swr experts."

Yeah, yeah.

I read an article once in which it was indicated that they laughed at John Bogle when he came forward with the "Index Funds" concept too. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened in the world.

Change is hard, guys. It always has been and it always will be. You just have to accept that and not get so worked about each little development. It will all get worked out in time if you just relax and try to keep your blood pressure under control.

[Trex]

Comment from someone who knows very little about SWR's, but doesn't need to in order to realize:

You guys are never going to agree. Whomever thinks they are right should stop arguing. The winner can say "I told you so" later.

Here come the "shut up Trex" comments....
Trex

[ataloss]

Hi trex. I don't argue but I am failing to see any big innovation in swr research. Maybe it was jwr renaming hswr hdbr after months of castigation of bensolar for the original term?

I think of the hocus board as performance art. People are invited/lured in to discuss swr. There is a fog of verbosity. You are told to thank hocus. You are told to agree with hocus. You can sort of drift around assuming that there is substance behind the fog but you never actually see anything solid. It is fascinating in a way.

If people accept comparisons of hocus to Paul McCartney and Bogle are we in store for an "I've been to the mountaintop" speech?

[hocus]

If people accept comparisons of hocus to Paul McCartney and Bogle...

I don't think these comparisons are so shocking. I sing like Bogle and I work numbers like McCartney.

Why don't we do it in an index fund?
Why don't we do it in an index fund?
No one will be watching us.
Why don't we do it in an index fund?

[BenSolar]

Why don't we do it in an index fund?
Why don't we do it in an index fund?
No one will be watching us.
Why don't we do it in an index fund?

How about this modification:

Why don't we d'do it in a post?
Why don't we do it in a post?
Why don't we do it in a po-o-o--o-st
Why don't we do it in a post?

No one will be reading us.
Why don't we do it in a post?

[therealchips]

I would be utterly frosted if a post of mine were deleted. Even the possibility is a chilling threat. I post here, beyond the reach of censorship.

Hocus, as I understand it, your argument runs like this:

1. If SWR analysis omits a relevant factor, the analysis is invalid and its conclusions are incorrect.

2. Conventional SWR analysis omits valuation levels.

3. Valuation levels are a relevant factor in SWR analysis.

4. Therefore, conventional SWR analysis is invalid and its conclusions are incorrect.

I have demonstrated in other posts that these factors are also relevant in determining withdrawals:

a. The planner's life expectancy

b. The utility function for money, or the value that the planner assigns to money

If I have stated your argument correctly and it is valid, then so will this one be:

1. If SWR analysis omits a relevant factor, the analysis is invalid and its conclusions are incorrect.

2. Hocus' SWR analysis omits both life expectancy and the personal utility of money.

3. Both life expectancy and personal utility of money are relevant factors in SWR analysis.

4. Therefore, Hocus' SWR analysis is invalid and its conclusions are incorrect.

A formal logical analysis of the first argument, as I gave it and attributed to Hocus, concludes that it is in fact a valid argument. Its first premise happens to be false, but that does not make the argument invalid. It only makes the argument's conclusion unsupported, even though premises 2. and 3. happen to be true. The formal logical point is that a falsehood among the premises of a valid argument does not prove the falsehood of that argument's conclusion.

Valid reasoning from false premises can easily lead to true conclusions. For example:
1. All apes are philosophers.
2. Socrates was an ape.
3. Therefore, Socrates was a philospher.
The argument is valid; the premises are false; the conclusion is true. The falsehood of the premises does not show that the conclusion is false nor that the argument is invalid.

I suggest you (Hocus) have only a few choices:

You can revise the first premise and the conclusion of your argument thus:

1. If SWR analysis omits a relevant factor, the analysis is incomplete and its conclusions are not so well substantiated as we wish.

4. Therefore, conventional SWR analysis is incomplete and its conclusions are not so well substantiated as we wish.

Alternatively, you can assert that I have totally misunderstood and misrepresented your position, and perhaps impugn my intellect and motives too, just for sport. Maybe John is better suited to that task.

Another alternative is a response so long-winded and unclear that no one knows what your position is.

Another alternative is to deny or ignore my claim that life expectancy and personal utility functions for money are relevant to SWR analysis. That might make for an interesting discussion.

Another alternative is to include those two factors in Hocus' SWR analysis. That would certainly make for interesting discussions.

Other alternatives for Hocus escape me at the moment.

Yours for brevity, clarity and respect for logic,

[hocus]

as I understand it, your argument runs like this....

Chips:

The questions you raise in this post are better suited for discussion at the SWR board.

[therealchips]

Ah, but I'm disinclined to post such dissident material over there, lest I be scolded for shirking my responsibility or, worse, have my post deleted. Anyway, Hocus, your response is admirably clear, quick, and concise. For that, I thank you.

One of the joys of FIRE is that only I am the judge of my responsibilities.

[ataloss]

your response is admirably clear, quick, and concise

[wanderer]

you forgot this part of the quote, ataoss:

For that, I thank you.

chips knows what's expected at the 'research' board. :lol:

One of the joys of FIRE is that only I am the judge of my responsibilities.

wait til chips finds out that, in 'hocus land', hocus holds all powers of all the branches: police, judge, arbiter of debate 'good taste', 'executioner'. It's a megalomaniac's wet dream. :wink:

[ataloss]

you forgot this part of the quote

I think it was a reflex, some sort of resistance on my part to the thanking of hocus

[wanderer]

The questions you raise in this post are better suited for discussion at the SWR board.

what are the odds of chips following hocus' advice? :roll:

[kathyet]

Chips,

You explained it all perfectly now I understand the theory of SWR but just one question what does SWR stand for :?::?:
:lol::lol:




Kathyet

[therealchips]

SWR is the Safe Withdrawal Rate, defined various ways, but generally meaning the rate of withdrawal from the retirement capital which would have avoided going broke over some selected period of time in the past. Its interest springs from the guidance it may provide us on safe withdrawal rates in the future, although people are quick to point out that the future may not be like the past. Many sources conclude that a 4% annual withdrawal from retirement funds, increased annually for inflation, has survived for every twenty or thirty year period in the past for which records are available. Hence the frequent statement that 4% has been the SWR. The survivability depends not only on the withdrawal rate, but also on the asset allocation. As I recall, typically only two assets are in the planning: an S&P 500 Index fund and short term US government paper. Sometimes the SWR research has a different goal from just avoiding going broke, such as ending with the same purchasing power as held initially.

That's an answer off the top of my head. Anyone wishing to modify this SWR sketch is welcome to do so as far as I am concerned, but softly, softly, please.