Page 3 of 3
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:11 am
by [KenM]
Sorry, jwr, but I don't accept the "I am not a numbers guy" excuse.
If someone has the temerity to spout forth upon the numbers aspect of SWR studies then he should at least read the studies and web sites first. I'm not a numbers guy either but at least I have enough common-courtesy to read the studies before commenting and have sufficient common-sense that I can understand most of the contents of the studies that are written in a reasonably simple manner easily understood by anyone with a rational turn of mind. If, even then, I make stupid errors of fact in my statements I'm very willing to accept what the real numbers guys have to say.
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:02 am
by raddr
KenM wrote: Sorry, jwr, but I don't accept the "I am not a numbers guy" excuse.
If someone has the temerity to spout forth upon the numbers aspect of SWR studies then he should at least read the studies and web sites first. I'm not a numbers guy either but at least I have enough common-courtesy to read the studies before commenting and have sufficient common-sense that I can understand most of the contents of the studies that are written in a reasonably simple manner easily understood by anyone with a rational turn of mind. If, even then, I make stupid errors of fact in my statements I'm very willing to accept what the real numbers guys have to say.
Hi Ken,
Nice post. BTW, I've got a confession to make. :oops:I'm not a
numbers guy either :!:By that I mean that I have had almost no formal mathematical training and am self-taught. Anyone can be a
numbers guy if they want to. So I agree with you that hiding behind the "I am not a numbers guy" excuse when one makes mistakes is just a big cop-out.
It would seem to me that a person who proclaims himself as knowing more about SWR's than anyone else might want to brush up on their math a bit so that they can understand what the SWR studies mean.
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:18 am
by ataloss
Anyone can be a numbers guy if they want to.
not in 14 months I guess
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:34 pm
by [KenM]
I'm beginning to sound irascible again - not a good thing to be
.......so if the stuff I disagree with stays elsewhere I will try and refrain from further comment on this topic
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 2:16 am
by wanderer
.......so if the stuff I disagree with stays elsewhere I will try and refrain from further comment on this topic
i respond once or twice now to irrational statements. if they still don't "get it" i am content to let it be. I have seen no further posts in this vein so maybe it's working
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 5:51 am
by ataloss
The point made in 8725 at the beginning of this thread was originall made by prometheuss on 5/1 on the other board
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=18988263
The book "Four Pillars of Investing," by William Bernstein, discusses the efficient frontier in great detail. On page 234, Bernstein makes the following statement in regard to safe withdrawal rates for stocks:
A particularly bad returns sequence can reduce your safe withdrawal rate amount by as much as 2 percent below the long-term return of stocks. Recall from Chapter 2 that it's likely that future real stock returns will be in the 3.5 percent range, which means that current retirees may not be entirely safe withdrawing more than 2 percent of the real starting values of their portfolios per year.
ataloss
searching the other board for "insights"