I have retired

[ataloss]

Ataloss hereby retires from the SWR board. I have decided to stop posting on the swr research board. I have not really found anything of value there. I am disturbed over the general tenor of the board. Specifically, rob bennett/hocus announced the superiority of a valuation based swr approach and JWR has set out to generate some supportive data. Both have been very critical of intercst referring to "busted retirements"￾ based on following a naive historical swr approach. As an alternative they have various valuation based swr strategies. No out of sample testing has been done and data has been excluded on an ad hoc basis to strengthen apparent associations. Hocus/ rob Bennett was following some sort of 0% stock allocation strategy with jwr basing his retirement on a pension. Overall they seem to be suggesting replacing a historical swr approach with something based on valuation but neither of them are using such an approach themselves.

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)

[raddr]

I wasn't going to comment here but I can't let this go after reading this bit of hubris from the SWR board:

From a technical standpoint, the Great Debate ended on June 24, 2003 when I submitted my post about Safe Withdrawal Rate versus P/E10 Data.
http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1173 That post has a sticky in recognition that it represents a historical milestone. Subsequent discussions have cleaned up loose ends and advanced the research. But the matter was settled.

This is nonsense. As Ataloss pointed out, my "proceed with caution" thread raised some serious questions about assumptions used in the model and pointed out some obvious statistical flaws regarding the SWR board methodology that was used to derive this "historical milestone". This did result in a very weak disclaimer being posted over there but I agree that someone without statistical knowledge who did not look through all of the many posts over there might miss it and base their retirement on flawed strategy.

Ataloss, I think you've made a prudent "retirement" move. I too find little or nothing of practical value over there. With the recent re-emergence of "RobBennet" and the nearly orgasmic worshipping of a long post or two by mannfm11 (maybe hocus/JWR under another alias?) I'm wondering if it should be renamed the "SWR comedy board"?

[ataloss]

I'm wondering if it should be renamed the "SWR comedy board"?

I second the motion

A non-retired ataloss might renew efforts on the dictionary to convert "swr board terminology" to English. I have noticed that when jwr says I have made a misstatement it can generally be translated as "hitting the nail on the head", LOL

[salaryguru]

Ataloss hereby retires from the SWR board. I have decided to stop posting on the swr research board. I have not really found anything of value there. . .

Ataloss,

That seems like a wise move to me. I sometimes get wound up with a thread on one of the retire early boards when I see misinformation or poor advice being dissiminated. As often as not, those who are spouting the misinformation outnumber you and outpost you. It can get very frustrating trying to keep up.

It's really not worth it to me. I'm learning to post my piece, then go enjoy retirement in some other way that does not involve reading the offending thread.

[ataloss]

I couldn't delete my posts so I edited out the content on a couple. If jwr doesn't want people to know that his retirement is based on a inflation indexed government pension rather than some market timing strategy- why sould I care?

[th]

Ataloss -

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is:

1) People smart enough to accumulate millions and retire early arent smart enough to comprehend a strategy and understand its ups and downs before implementing it, and will take on a defective strategy because a couple of guys on a web site said so.

2) Its the sworn duty of other posters to cry "bullshit" when someone floats a theory, particularly if the theory isnt well thought out or fully presented, in light of the fact that no theory can be effectively proven as it would be quite different from one person to another, and proof requires knowledge of the future.

3) The best course of action when someone espouses a defective theory that might be blindly followed by other ER's is not to simply dismiss the bad theory, or in a line or two point out its deficiencies, but to leave the community entirely.

Ick. I'm sorry if that sounds adversarial, but it just doesnt make sense to me.

SalaryGuru -

You give sage advice. I've learned that when someone argues their position by miscalculating numbers by seven figures in their favor, claims people have said things they never said, claims "many" people feel a certain way when there is no evidence of that, contradict themselves in the rush to disagree, refuse to answer direct and specific questions, and then float ideas that are contrary to the vast majority of investors...well...ignoring or avoiding them is the best course.

However one would then miss the really amusing part where that person claims others are trolls and a danger to the community.

[ElSupremo]

Greetings th :)

However one would then miss the really amusing part where that person claims others are trolls and a danger to the community.

LOL again! We have no trolls here, just a little confusion.

[th]

Greetings th :)

just a little confusion

Indeed. A little confusion is possibly the reason for most wars, disagreements and bad feelings. Unfortunately once the ball gets rolling the original confusion is lost and the 'children' born of it becomes the main issue.

Sigh.

[salaryguru]

SalaryGuru -

You give sage advice. I've learned that when someone argues their position by miscalculating numbers by seven figures in their favor, claims people have said things they never said, claims "many" people feel a certain way when there is no evidence of that, contradict themselves in the rush to disagree, refuse to answer direct and specific questions, and then float ideas that are contrary to the vast majority of investors...well...ignoring or avoiding them is the best course.

However one would then miss the really amusing part where that person claims others are trolls and a danger to the community.

TH,

Your posts are often amusing and many posters take an immediate like to you. You are also a prolific poster and generous in your praise to many other posters on the boards. But you once again have completely misrepresented my position and my posts in our "debate" about investing and mortgage rates.

During that discussion, you apparently came to dislike me intensely -- to the point that we stopped communicating effectively long before I chose to stop posting. I felt that many of your posts were personal attacks, inaccurate representations of what I was saying, and inconsistent. You clearly felt similarly about me.

For those that did not follow the discussion over on Dory's board, I suggested that people considering paying off their mortgage before retiring use Dory's FIRECALC to simulate the effect and look at the results before deciding what to do. It turns out that for people with mortgage rates at or below about 5.5% for something approaching 30 years, there is a very high historical probability of beating the payoff route with a fairly conservative 50/50 stock/bond split. In fact, for a 30 year loan at 5%, the historical probability that keeping the mortgage is better than payoff is at or near 100%. I also pointed out that there were other (non-financial) concerns that should also be considered in making the decision and could overwhelm the numbers.

I'm still not clear on what TH's position was -- other than that I was wrong. So I will not attempt to summarize on his behalf.

There . . . I've said my piece. I will get on with more pleasant pursuits.

[th]

SG -

Who said I was talking about you? Did that description fit you so well you felt obliged to reply?

Do you really want to bring all that back up again?

I cant help myself...

In my recollection of our two discussions you contradicted yourself repeatedly to argue with me, YOU started the name calling, YOU claimed I and others said things that were never said, and when I spent hours looking for proof of your claims and couldnt find them, you said you dont do my research for me...(????)

You never, ever acknowledged any of my points, you avoided answering direct questions, you called me a variety of names...what was it? "sales technique using"..."emotional"..."misdirection"..."inaccuracies"...etc. This from the guy who refused to discuss or acknowledge anything except the one single set of circumstances that supported his own point, and who blew the calculations by about 50% in 7 figure amounts.

So I actually conceded points I didnt feel comfortable conceding, hoping to remove some tension and bring us to a point where we could rationally discuss the topics further. You yanked up the rope slack and dug in twice as hard.

In one Clintonian moment, you even argued with the Oxford dictionary and a major university texts definition of a word...

Then when I posted quotes where you clearly contradicted yourself, improperly calculated numbers, presented totally wrong and one sided arguments, and so forth, you claimed to have been victimized by me, complained about me calling you names (after you basically filled out a two page post saying I'm a weasel), and then went back and deleted all your posts on the subjects. Then in a final fit, you declared me a troll that would destroy the entire community and make it unfit for anyone to spend time at. Clearly that was as accurate a point as your others.

I'm sure you saw it differently...and for the record I didnt then and dont now "dislike" you. In fact I never had any idea why you so venomously attacked me and my positions, but I dont give up a fight easily.

In the end, nobody benefited.

Oh yeah...thanks for the compliments. I find your posts when you're not discussing one of a couple of subjects interesting, funny and worthwhile reading.

[salaryguru]

SG -

Who said I was talking about you? . . . .

TH,

I don't want to waste more of anyone's time on this, but in answer to the above question: You did. You addressed me specifically. You wrote

SalaryGuru -

You give sage advice. . .

then followed up with the paragraphs that I quoted.

I can only say that I disagree completely with your characterization of what happened in the discussion on mortgage payoff over on Dory's board.

[hocus2004]

This is where Smear Campaigns take us.

Wake up, people! Wake up!

[ataloss]

TH

1) People smart enough to accumulate millions and retire early arent smart enough to comprehend a strategy and understand its ups and downs before implementing it, and will take on a defective strategy because a couple of guys on a web site said so.

2) Its the sworn duty of other posters to cry "bullshit" when someone floats a theory, particularly if the theory isnt well thought out or fully presented, in light of the fact that no theory can be effectively proven as it would be quite different from one person to another, and proof requires knowledge of the future.

3) The best course of action when someone espouses a defective theory that might be blindly followed by other ER's is not to simply dismiss the bad theory, or in a line or two point out its deficiencies, but to leave the community entirely.

1. well, es hasn't instituted any screening that I know of and I, for one, was taken in with the idea that such a prolific poster must have a point- if only he was allowed to make it (his claim was that he couldn't at tmf.) I went so far as to take hocus as a second language.

2. I used to care more about this place than I should have and I thought I could spare some others the trouble. Hocus would like to style this as a "great debate" but in fact, he has no alternative approach to suggest. It is obvious (although not always acknowledged at tmf) that fSWR may be less than hSWR. Hocus will sometimes accuse someone of denying this as a debating tactic but I think he was the only one who thought "100% safe" applied to the future.

3.LOL, best for who? Are you saying I have some sort of obligation?

[hocus2004]

"...although not always acknowledged at TMF..."

I wonder why.

"I think he was the only one who thought "100% safe" applied to the future."

Posts in the archives showing you to be wrong in this assertion number in the THOUSANDS and stretch back through FIVE YEARS of our little movement's history.

[th]

SG -

Who said I was talking about you? . . . .

TH,

I don't want to waste more of anyone's time on this, but in answer to the above question: You did. You addressed me specifically. You wrote

SalaryGuru -

You give sage advice. . .

then followed up with the paragraphs that I quoted.

I can only say that I disagree completely with your characterization of what happened in the discussion on mortgage payoff over on Dory's board.

SG - Just as an aside, yes I did mention your name to acknowledge your point. However the poster I was referring to that behaved in that manner wasnt you. Belieeeeve it or not, sometimes its not about you

In context to this discussion though, I thought there were some similarities in how we ended up dealing with each other and the current hocus situation, and I wanted to see if you would do me the honor of taking the bait. Because our little "outings" did create some fodder pertinent to our current discussion.

Everyone else - SG and I had a couple of "outings" where, as you can clearly see, we both behaved like a couple of asshats, spent 15 bbs pages producing nothing of value, and ended up both thinking the other guy was wrong, a troll, whatever.

I doubt anyone else thinks either SG or myself are any of those things.

I suppose therefore it just kinda depends on what kind of miasma you find yourself enmired in, and who is in the swamp up to what body part, and how many are on which "side".

But I've given up on the peacemaker role. Folks here who think there is a hocus problem appear hell bent to make that problem worse, and it appears some will leave "on principal" regardless of the fact that the strong principals fly directly in the face of what they say they want most. Or the least.

SG - in closing with you on the matter of our mutual "smiting", I'm sorry if you felt like I "hated" you.

I've taken collectively months worth of training on how to communicate with people effectively and how to deal with difficulties and problems in communications, and successfully used those techniques for decades. I tried everything in my arsenal with you to try to understand what the hell your points were and to get you to acknowledge mine, but I was just as frustrated in the end as you appear to be.

I'd bet you good money though that if we sat around and drank a couple of beers, we'd like each other. After some actual dialog around what we talked about here, we'd probably be slapping ourselves in the forehead exclaiming "ohhhh...THATS what you meant".

However, once again in context, the smiting, the jihad and the effects of the jihad are the core of the discussion. Not the actual points, why we're here and how we can escape the unproductive dialogue.

Ataloss - I'm afraid I'm at a loss. I thought the big concern here, as eloquently expressed by SG, was a loose cannon poster with wrong ideas that will disrupt the discussions and mislead people. Yet most of the disruption isnt coming from him, and you here claim no responsibility to set the record straight.

So what the hell are you unhappy about again?

[PainInTheAS]

@$@@&&!$th@^*&@$!!!
Oh, and you can't accessorize!

Fascinating. I never hung out at Dory's board, and I didn't get this at all.

I got your %$&*!$! accessories rite heah!

Hey, you guys, don't stop. This is almost as juicy as as the "hocus against the world (and he's got us surrounded!)" epic battle.

ES, can we start a Mortgage Payoff Research board so we can watch sg and th duke it out (or how about an NFB Celebrity Deathmatch of the Week feature?).



PITA

[th]

Yeah, it was quite a duel.

SG - I agree with what you said exactly. In that scenario, thats what happens, exclusive of tax considerations, which are different for every person.

I also pointed out that by paying off the mortgage from your fixed income assets and moving to a 60/40 split of the remainder, you did even better than the results you produced. Or by paying it off and moving to a 40/60 split you cut your volatility in half, and produced a 100% surviving portfolio with a smaller portfolio size than your example. Not having the mortgage payment looming over your head lets you become riskier with a higher stock component, or go for lower volatilty because you dont need to pull as much money from the portfolio annually.

I also said that the payoff, ideally made from fixed income investments yielding less than the mortgage rate, provided for one to take more control over mandatory expense items, reduce ones withdrawal amount and hence their tax load, and offered a safe haven for a portion of ones portfolio during the current times of high valuations and uncertainty.

When I did that you accused me of being a weasel and using "emotional" factors, and said my chief argument was "not losing the house", then later said "many people" list "not losing the house" as their chief concern. When I spent hours looking for anyone, including me, that listed that as a chief concern or even a top 5 concern, I couldnt find any. Asked you to point one out to me. Thats where you said "I dont do your research for you" and quit.

But getting out of the jihad and smiting, what exactly is our grounds for disagreement and what part of my point dont you understand? Lets put on a good show here for these bored ER's...or perhaps show them how to let bygones be bygones and see that they dont disagree as much as they think?

[ElSupremo]

Greetings PITA :)

ES, can we start a Mortgage Payoff Research board so we can watch sg and th duke it out (or how about an NFB Celebrity Deathmatch of the Week feature?).

Sounds good. No shortage of Celebrity Death match's around here lately.

[wanderer]

I'm really grateful to hocus for teaching me about value investing.

Hocus taught me that after he began posting at tmf in 99/00. That fantabulous post, which I commemorate with an unusually hairy d*mp every May 13, was a real 'insight'. Unfortunately, hocus didn't come up with his 'tool' (God, is that a great word for it, or what?) until sometime in 1996. And then there's the fact that my family stopped adding to VFINX on June 30, 1995, precisely. Back when the DJIA was at around 4550 (we thought it was AT LEAST fairly valued).

So, thanks again for teaching me something you didn't know a year before you claim to have known it.

Will yet another thread where folks rebut idiocy be locked? Inquiring minds want to know....

[th]

By the way, its true. I cannot accessorize.

However, I would think calling anything SG has an "accessory" to be nothing short of overgrandizing Perhaps "impedimenta" would be appropriate...