Question for JWR1945

Financial Independence/Retire Early -- Learn How!
Post Reply
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Question for JWR1945

Post by ataloss »

There are many aspects of the question on which there are reasonable differences of opinion. For example, Bernstein has one way of incorporating the valuation factor into his analysis, and he comes up with an SWR of 2 percent in the year 2000. JWR1945 favors an alternate approach and he comes up with 2.3 percent. Both approaches are valid. It's legitimate for us to have discussions as to which is better, but there is no need for us to achieve a consensus on this point.


Ok, we have Bernstein using the Gordon equation and (probably) the 4/7 rule and the JWR1945 approach.

Are you satisfied that your swr calculation meets this criterion:

SWR analysis, when it is true to what the data says, is different.
What the data says is not a matter of opinion. Data analysis involves
numbers. Data is hard, objective. You add up all the numbers that bear on the question being examined and you get a right answer to the question posed.


Can we really count on the result with 100% certainty? 95%?
Have fun.

Ataloss
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

ataloss asks me (JWR1945):
<b?Are you satisfied that your swr calculation meets this criterion:
and then he presents the criterion:
SWR analysis, when it is true to what the data says, is different. What the data says is not a matter of opinion. Data analysis involves numbers. Data is hard, objective.
Absolutely. This is absolutely true. There is no doubt about it.

ataloss is also referring to this:
You add up all the numbers that bear on the question being examined and you get a right answer to the question posed.
Yes. This is true as well. With certainty. However, you must be very careful to identify the question posed.

This issue has been key to defining what we mean when we refer to a Safe Withdrawal Rate. We are talking about an estimate along with its context. We do not allow a safe withdrawal rate to be defined in a trivial manner. We exclude meaningless definitions such as the safe withdrawal rate is defined to be whatever actually happened when we look back at the data thirty years from now.

I have addressed additional details in my No, it's not that simple thread.

Have fun.

John R.
Post Reply