NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index

Getting a newbie up to speed quickly
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » SWR Research Group
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He bases that conclusion on regressions

You are mixing up two different stages of the analysis before us.

First, you need to determine whether the methodology used in the REHP study is analytically valid or not. Only then do you proceed to determining whether an alternate methodology that is analytically valid can be developed.

You are focusing on the second stage before you have completed work on the first. The first is the one that matters most. If intercst got the number wrong, then we have been giving false information re what the data says to aspiring early retirees who make use of our boards for six years now. Once we acknowledge this terrible mistake, which is likely to cause thousands of busted retirements if not corrected, THEN we can all proceed together to developing alternatives that work (and we can use JWR1945's work as an excellent starting place).

Intercst makes zero adjustment for changes in valuation levels. He says that it is "100 percent safe" to assume that changes in valuation levels will have zero effect this time, even though they have always had a significant effect in the past.

What does Bernstein say? He says that changes in valuation levels affect long-term returns as a matter of "mathematical certainty."

Does anyone have any grounds for believing that Bernstein is wrong on this one and intercst is right?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unclemick
*** Veteran


Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 231
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have faith

There will be a test: courtesy Ben Graham's Mr Market or Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.

Let's hope WE ALL PASS THE TEST!

Heh, heh, heh, heh.

This is fun.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
First, you need to determine whether the methodology used in the REHP study is analytically valid or not. Only then do you proceed to determining whether an alternate methodology that is analytically valid can be developed.

You are focusing on the second stage before you have completed work on the first. The first is the one that matters most. If intercst got the number wrong, then we have been giving false information re what the data says to aspiring early retirees who make use of our boards for six years now. Once we acknowledge this terrible mistake, which is likely to cause thousands of busted retirements if not corrected, THEN we can all proceed together to developing alternatives that work.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of this forum. I thought that it was to develop a methodology that would be superior to the REHP study.

Your language above, however, leads me to think that what you are really looking for is tit-for-tat in the war you and intercst are waging. He has his disciples, a major part of whose attention in these matters is devoted to belittling you. Are you too looking for disciples who must first renounce the devil before they "proceed to developing alternatives that work"?

That doesn't work for me. I'm nobody's disciple.



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peterv
* Rookie


Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 11
Location: Reno, Nevada

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Norbert, thanks for a breath of fresh air. A little healthy skepticism is a good thing. Perhaps if we can't have an honest, non hostel, debate at dorey36 we can have it here. However, I have to admit to having some doubts. If you persist in bringing up dificult questions I suspect your time here is limited. Hope I'm wrong, unclemick seems to get away with a little contrarian opinion, although he pretty much soft peddles it.

ES, are hard questions going to be allowed to run their course if they stay polite?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member


Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 343
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings peterv Smile

Quote:
ES, are hard questions going to be allowed to run their course if they stay polite?

I can't speak for this board. I do not run it. It's up to the moderator here. On all the other boards here at NFB the answer to your question is absolutely!



_________________
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you too looking for disciples who must first renounce the devil before they "proceed to developing alternatives that work"?

No.

I've come over the course of time to believe that I am about as different a sort of person from intercst as it is possible to be. Disciples ain't my cup of tea. You can stop worrying about that one.

I like straight-shooters and one thing that I am coming to like about you, Norbert, is that you have a tendency to be somewhat frank in your comments. As Peterv notes, that's like a breath of fresh air after a steady diet of nonsense gibberish. Frank is good. We can't get anywhere with this unless we all start being more frank. Frank is very good indeed.

I've already told you that I am not here to recruit disciples. Now I will tell you why I am here. I'm here to learn.

If I knew all the answers, what the heck would I be doing posting stuff on discussion boards? If I knew all the answers, I would just skip to the part of this process that brings in the bucks and just write all my darn books without you all. I come to the boards to test out my ideas, find out their strengths and weaknesses, and make them better before I take them to the Big Bad World outside the confines of our little community.

There is something that intercst used to say to me constantly back in the early days of this saga. He used to say "Anyone can post anything he wants at the Motley Fool board." It's true, in a sense. You really can post whatever you want. What you can't do is have a discussion about whatever you want. Once he gives the signal to his attack dogs, the discussion part of the discussion board experience gets pulled. Since the only part I benefit from is the feedback (I already know about my own ideas, right?), that ruins it for me. I need to get feedback or I feel like I'm giving it all away free, and that also ain't my cup of tea.

JWR1945 appears to me to be a more generous-spirited individual than me. He pretty much gives it away free. I benefit from the stuff he puts up, so I am in no position to knock him for it. But I wouldn't do it, if I were in his shoes. If I were knocking myself out putting up this mind-bending stuff and all I was getting in return was a bunch of people who aren't fit to carry my shoes dissing my work, I'd tell them to shove it and find somewhere else to go with it. I'm just telling you where I am coming from here. I'm being frank.

The point that I am trying to drive home here is that the last thing I want is disciples. Don't want, don't need. What I need is honest and informed feedback. There are lots of people in our community who are real smart when they are posting on any topic other than SWRs who suddently become real dumb and forgetful-like when they begin posting on SWRS. What's that about?

When people put up nonsense, I'm not getting a decent value proposition for the time I put in here. I can write the posts coming from the intercst supporters quicker than they can write them. I've got all that gibber-jabber memorized at this point. I have zero interest in reading more gibber-jabber at this stage of the proceedings.

The core purpose was to provide those who wanted as escape from the nonsense being spouted by intercst supporters a safe place to engage in reasoned discussions. One of the things we have accomplished as a result was to develop JWR1945's methodology. But that was not the sole reason for which this board was set up.

Ultimately, my goal is to open up the possibility of honest and informed posting on SWRs at all of the various boards. That means the Early Retirement Forum, the Motley Fool board, the raddr board, all of them. I don't see why there should be anyone who should not be permitted to post honestly on this important topic.

Does that mean that everyone is going to agree with me? Of course not. That would be a stupid thing for me to want.

Does it mean that everyone is going to NOT agree with intercst? Precisely So! That's the key. Intercst is the poison that has made us all sick. We ditch intercst, and we all are made well again. We won't agree on the subtance stuff and we won't feel a need to. We will agree that we all have a right to our say. That's the key to making the boards healthy again.

JWR1945 focuses on substance. I focus on process. One reason is because I am not capable of doing the numbers stuff he does. Another is that I think that the process stuff is just a whole bunch more important. If we get the process side right--and that means cutting intercst loose, in case anyone forget between the time they read the last paragraph and when they got to this one--everything else falls nicely into place. If we gain the right to post honestly, we will figure out all the rest to the extent we care to. When we have pushed it as far as we care to, we will just turn to something else that interests us more. We won't need to get instructions from a Board General to know how to proceed. We will just do what feels right.

I am anti-intercst. That is the message that I want everyone to pick up loud and clear. Heaven knows I've said it enough times. But people seem to forget, or not really believe me when I say it or something. I want to be known as the leading voice in our community speaking out in opposition to the intercst vision of early retirement. There are few things here and there that he says that I am OK with. In general, however, it is A-OK by me if you all come to refer to me as the anti-intercst. Just about everything he is for, I am against. And just about everything he is against, I am for.

Is that frank enough?

Now. Dory36 put forward a little riff last Firday where he claimed that I am like a Methodist telling the Baptists that they've got it all wrong. If all our boards are intercst boards, then he's got it right. I say that our boards are not interest boards, they are Retire Early boards. If that's so, they I am in like flint. Because the only thing "wrong" with anything I have said over the past 34 months is that it is anti-intercst. That's the only "crime" that I have even been accused of.

I am saying that it is cool to be anti-intercst. I'm saying that should be allowed, even encouraged. That's the core point in contention. Whether the JWR1945 methodology is cool or not is a side issue. What matters is--Can I post about that cool or uncool (whatever the case may be) methodology on any of the various Retire Early boards? Or are those boards reserved for pro-intercst stuff? Because intercst hates that JWR1945 methodology. He fundamantally can't take it.

If the rule is that anti-intercstism is not permitted, we are wasting our time talking about the merits of the JWR1945 methodology. We already know what we need to know--intercst hates JWR1945's stuff, take my word. If anti-intercstism is in, then we are wasting our time talking about the merits of the JWR1945 methodology, at least here. We should be having the discussion at larger boards, where more of us are available to participate. Why the heck would we keep these discussions bottled up here if we are allowed to take them to the other boards?

So that's the real question we need to resolve to advance the ball. We all get it that hocus is anti-intercst, as anti-intercst as it is possible to be. What we need to figure out is, is that OK?

Are we a Retire Early community or are we an Intercst community? That's the real question that has been put on the table with this thing.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps if we can't have an honest, non-hostile debate at dorey36, we can have it here.

Perhaps.

But to have a useful discussion, we need posters. How many can we count on pulling in to discussions held at this place? There's a board boycott in place, remember?

If you persist in bringing up difficult questions I suspect your time here is limited.

It's quite the opposite. If he brings up difficult questions, that stretches out his lifespan. Diffcult questions give me something to think about, and that means that my mind is engaged, and that means I am happy. I don't shoot people who make me happy.

Do you want to know the sort of thing that will cause his lifespan here to get shortend?. Dumb stuff. Questions like the one Mr. 007 (who is one smart cookie when not posting on the intercst matter) brought up a little bit ago. "Uh, duh, I wonder, duh, if there be any, duh, diff-a-dence be-duh!-tween da woid "safe" and da woid "surviving." Do there be a diff-rinse?" That sort of thing will get you knocked on your bottom at a hocus-moderated board in short order. That one for some funny reason failed to engage my mind.

Ben has an awful lot to offer this community. Sometimes he shows us some of what he has to give, and it is wonderful. Other times he puts on his intercst-supporter mask and he posts like his head is full of rocks.

I see it as my job as moderator here to figure out how to drop the Dumb Ben in the river so that the Smart Ben gets to come out and play with us more.

Unclemick seems to get away with a little contrarian opinion, although he pretty much soft peddles it.

Stop soft-peddling it, UncleMick. Peterv does not go for that jizz-jazz. Me neither. Get real, UncleMick!

Are hard questions going to be allowed to run their course if they stay polite?

Polite is nice. It's two steps up from non-polite. But polite doesn't pay the electric bill when your portfolio goes bust. Polite gets you points here (because it so pisses intercst off when people are polite) but polite alone is not enough to carry the day. You need to say something real. Get real, everyone!

There's one last thing I wanted to mention in case anyone forgot. I am the anti-intercst.

That's OK with everybody, isn't it? You're not all a bunch of Baptists or anything, are you?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
I'm here to learn. ... When people put up nonsense, I'm not getting a decent value proposition for the time I put in here.

I'd like you not to get upset while reading this, so sit down and take a deep breath. I hope that JWR1945 and I can have a discussion here about his methodology. Suppose that, during the course of that discussion, it becomes apparent that the methodology and the claimed results are at best dubious and at worst nonsense. Can I count on you to learn from that rather than delete what is written?

Quote:
Does it mean that everyone is going to NOT agree with intercst? Precisely So! That's the key.

This doesn't give me high hopes about your desire to learn. Those three sentences indicate a desire to rub intercst's nose into the dirt more than anything else. I would like to suggest that the best thing for you to do is to abandon the vendetta for now, follow the evidence and discussion wherever it leads, and hope that the result is sufficient to expose intercst's result as at best lame. It's your only out at this point. Vendetta for the sake of vendetta cannot rehabilitate you or damn intercst.

Quote:
One reason is because I am not capable of doing the numbers stuff [JWR1945] does.

This is a real problem for you then. Suppose JWR1945 and I disagree in the coming weeks. On what basis can you possibly decide who is right and who is wrong?

Quote:
Another is that I think that the process stuff is just a whole bunch more important. If we get the process side right--and that means cutting intercst loose, in case anyone forget between the time they read the last paragraph and when they got to this one--everything else falls nicely into place.

There's the vendetta again. Being right is less important to you than getting even. I will suggest yet again that the only way to get even is by being right.

Quote:
Because the only thing "wrong" with anything I have said over the past 34 months is that it is anti-intercst. That's the only "crime" that I have even been accused of.

To be fair, you are also accused of twisting facts and logic to further your vendetta and of doing so ad nauseum. Is your object to be right or to get even?



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ben
*** Veteran


Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 231
Location: The world is not enough

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am always polite Hocus - unlike you in the above post. I presume you are just having a bad day (so am I actually) and will just let it go.
You should try it one day Wink .



_________________
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can I count on you to learn from that rather than delete what is written?

If you do something that shows me that the JWR1945 methodology does not work, you will be my friend for life. You will be saving me from a lot of embarassment that I would have experienced taking his methodology public in speeches and Research Reports and books. So please feel free to knock yourself out on that one.

Just don't go into it thinking that showing the JWR methodology to be imperfect somehow erases the problem of intercst getting the number wrong and then playing all sorts of games to block the community from discussing the implications of the error. Intercst got the number wrong regardless of anything that JWR1945 has done, and aspiring early retirees need to be put on notice of that.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those three sentences indicate a desire to rub intercst's nose into the dirt more than anything else

It's exactly the opposite.

Intercst is a grown man. Grown men have to take responsibility for their actions. He is not three years old and we should all stop treating him like he is a three-year old. We are not all the little boy's mommies and daddies.

I treat intercst the same as I treat any other poster. I expect him to live up to the standards that all other posters are expected to live up to. If all of us demanded that of him, he wouldn't be in the mess he is in today.

What rubs his nose in the dirt is to permit this thing to go on and on. The guy got a number wrong in a study. Big deal. No one cares. There is not one person who found fault with him for getting the number wrong. When he went off the rails, someone should have taken him aside and explained to him the fact of life, and then we all could have gone about our proper business, including him.

The people who think of themselves as intercst's friends are sorry excuses for friends, in my view. All that they have done is make his embarassment 1,000 times worse than it would have been had they insisted that he acknowledge his error when he first became aware of it.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

follow the evidence and discussion wherever it leads, and hope that the result is sufficient to expose intercst's result as at best lame.

We already know that Bernstein says that intercst got the number wrong by two full percentage points. What chance is there at this point that we are going to learn that the intercst methodology is so perfect that anyone who even questions it should be banned for life from all the boards?

"Zero chance" is the answer. The question that matters most was answered definitively more than two years ago.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vendetta for the sake of vendetta cannot rehabilitate you or damn intercst.

I don't need any rehabiliatation. I am the one who first pointed out that he got the number wrong, remember?

And there is no vendetta. I just want to be known as the anti-intercst so that no one gets the mistaken impression that because I posted at the same boards as him for a number of years that I was somehow involved in the con he was working on the Retire Early community.

I spoke out against the con first and I spoke out against it often. Please do not forget.

Thanks be to God for creating Post Archives.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
Intercst got the number wrong regardless of anything that JWR1945 has done

Your worst enemy can say that the sun will rise tomorrow. That your worst enemy says so does not make it false.

You have said on more than one occasion that numbers are not your strong point. Given that, how can you know that "intercst got the number wrong"?

You must choose. It has to be either "I can prove that intercst got the number wrong" or "I don't like intercst so he must have got the number wrong." The first is productive. The second isn't and results in no one taking you seriously. What's it going to be?



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Suppose JWR1945 and I disagree in the coming weeks. On what basis can you possibly decide who is right and who is wrong?

I can form tentative judgments based on how people respond to questions and the tone they use and things of that sort. I do not possess the skill set to say definitely who is right on a statsitics-related question, however. It's just not for me to say.

We could take it to a third party. We could put something together describing both points of view and take it to William Bernstein or Scott Burns or someone like that.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being right is less important to you than getting even.

Getting even means nothing to me. My quest is to be able to post honestly on the various Retire Early/FIRE/Passion Saving boards, and for others who want to discuss SWRs with me to be able to post honestly as well.

I will suggest yet again that the only way to get even is by being right.

I have already been proven right beyond any reasonable doubt. There are three researchers who calculated the SWR using different analytically valid methodologies (Bernstein, JWR1945, and raddr). None of the three came up with a number even remotely in the same ballpark as the intercst number. That's because the historical data offers no support for the intercst number.

Being proven right did not give me the ability to post honestly on the various Retire Early/FIRE/Passion Saving boards. It is clear from Dory36's recent action that none of us will ever have the ability to post honestly until intercst has been banned from all of the various boards.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
follow the evidence and discussion wherever it leads, and hope that the result is sufficient to expose intercst's result as at best lame.

We already know that Bernstein says that intercst got the number wrong by two full percentage points.

Arguments from authority are fallacious. I have high respect for Bernstein and Four Pillars is one of just three investing books which I recommend on my own website. But your continued references to p.234 (or whatever it is) are not helpful. Bernstein could be as wrong as you think intercst is. You must think for yourself. Accepting Bernstein's words blindly is as dumb as accepting 4% blindly. Especially in this particular case, where Bernstein just happens to be wrong.

Quote:
What chance is there at this point that we are going to learn that the intercst methodology is so perfect that anyone who even questions it should be banned for life from all the boards?

You may believe whatever you want to believe on this subject. From what I can see - and my sight isn't perfect because I don't know the entire history - you were banned for reasons other than questioning the methodology.

Quote:
The question that matters most was answered definitively more than two years ago.

Where's that question and the definitive answer? Please point me to it.



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To be fair, you are also accused of twisting facts and logic to further your vendetta and of doing so ad nauseum.

No one who has said such a thing has ever pointed to a post with my name on it as offering support for the claim. No one ever will. There is no post in the archives offering any support for any such claim.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am always polite Hocus

Polite doesn't pay the bills when an early retiree's plan goes bust, Ben. You need to move beyond polite. You need to begin using your God-given intellect to helping people figure out what the historical data really says about what withdrawal rate is safe. That's what matters here.

unlike you in the above post.

I'm employing a little tough love with you, Ben. I think you degrade yourself when you pretend that you haven't been able in 34 months to figure out the difference between "safe" and "surviving." I don't think you are as dumb as you sometimes pretend to be.

I'm asking more of you than you are for now asking of yourself. That's not an insult. That a compliment. I'm saying that there is a straight-shooting Ben deep down inside that would make a stronger poster than the one we saw when you posted that you haven't been able to figure out the difference between the words "surviving" and "safe."

I'd like to see that better Ben come out soon and then stay awhile. He's not worth it, Ben.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
To be fair, you are also accused of twisting facts and logic to further your vendetta and of doing so ad nauseum.

No one who has said such a thing has ever pointed to a post with my name on it as offering support for the claim. No one ever will. There is no post in the archives offering any support for any such claim.

There can be no single post to support the "ad nauseum" claim. That only comes from reading the entire oeuvre.

For a single post, one need only refer to [link missing]. Of course you may disagree with the accusations therein, but you cannot deny that they were made. You might want to consider how a disinterested third party would take that thread. I realize that, as moderator, you have the power to edit or delete that thread. I trust you won't do that.



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » SWR Research Group All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
Designed for Trushkin.net | Styles Database