Raddr's "proceed with caution" post was one of the most important on the valuation swr but it wasn't posted on that board. I am not sure that it is worth refuting every variant of the weak arguments that jwr puts forth. The interest on the swr board seems to be more in supporting some sort of claim than carefully analyzing the future validity of a retrospectively determined approach. Sort of the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to the historical approach that they criticize.
On the swr board referring to the switching strategies I said (to jwr)
you might mention that you don't follow this sort of strategy
He took exemption to this:
Untrue. You have made a misstatement.
My retirement pension is more than sufficient to meet my financial requirements. I do not make any withdrawals from my investment accounts. I do not expect to. I am still in the accumulation stage.
Essentially confirming my point that he would not base his retirement on some data mined switching strategy. He doesn't need to. Of course most of his 400 posts on the swr board have been about such switching strategies. I think it is logical to assume that people would thing he was recommending them for use.
I find that the disclaimers on the swr board are weaker than they ever were at the rehp and I think there is a possibility that someone will might actually follow this sort of valuation based switching. I have decided that I don't want to be associated with that board. I have felt some responsibility for suppressing inaccurate information at nfb in general but I am retiring from that as well. (I am assuming that hocus/rob bennett/ sam cooke1961 has not started the new board that was supposed to start on the second anniversary of the "great debate" post)