Ataloss takes advice from hocus

Financial Independence/Retire Early -- Learn How!
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

Aarrrgggghhhhh :!::!::!:
I've just re-read my previous posts....

I'm beginning to sound like hocus :shock::shock::shock:..... (sorry, hocus :))

Is there a cure :?:

I've failed to honour my previous signature :cry::cry::cry:........

....... I've had to revert to ........
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

Ataloss
Personally, I have reservations about a 4% swr taken when the market is at unprecedented valuation and I have no general interest in defending intercst but I get sucked into these pointless discussions.
The absurdity of my own position is that I don't actually believe in a single, fixed SWR for a 30 year period or whatever and certainly not 4% :D. Gummy's sensible withdrawal strategy or something similar is the only way to go for me.
If several of us had a mutually agreed upon statment on this matter we would only need to update it if hocus actually came up with something new. What do you think?
Problem is that hocus usually seems to come up with something new (e.g. the historic 4% SWR is the average SWR over 100 years ). Perhaps a suitable comment might be "that's a hocus-like statement" - very serious, very well-intentioned, but regrettably incorrect. If I ever make any hocus-like statements I very much hope that somebody will quickly point them out to me :).
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

I am largely in sympathy with the comment being made by Ataloss here. We have gone over some of these points many times before. It is unlikely that an argument that failed to persuade me earlier will persuade me now, and it is unlikely that the board community is not aware of arguments that have been put forward many times before. So I am not sure that any constructive purpose is served by rehashing old stuff.


I don't think there is really any new stuff, I have posted my first FRH. You don't have to agree. I think we could save time by not making points to you that have been made dozens or hundreds of times before.
Have fun.

Ataloss
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

If I ever make any hocus-like statements I very much hope that somebody will quickly point them out to me .

OTOH perhaps I make them all the time and everybody's too polite to mention it :D
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
User avatar
BenSolar
*** Veteran
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:46 am
Location: Western NC

A Legless Chicken?

Post by BenSolar »

KenM wrote: Running around like a legless chicken


LOL :lol: That cracks me up. It made me laugh at first, and it took me a while to realize it was 'legless' instead of 'headless', now I've been chuckling for a while over that. :D
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

Hocus I didn't notice this in your post originally but it was pointed out on the TMF.
What the conventional analysis tells you, I believe, is the average SWR over a long period of time. If you properly calculated all the SWRs for each of the past 100 years, added them together, and then divideded by 100, I believe that the number you would get would be something close to 4. I guess it's good to know that number. But that number is not the SWR as defiined for purposes of SWR analysis.


Was this a typo? If so, Maybe JWR or someone else you will listen to could explain the REHP and or trinity study to you. If this is your understanding I can see why you would think the studies aren't reliable.
Have fun.

Ataloss
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

Perhaps a suitable comment might be "that's a hocus-like statement" - very serious, very well-intentioned, but regrettably incorrect.

Given your views on this matter, that's a kind thing for you to say, KenM. I don't think I will have done too bad a job of things if that ends up being the phrase they put on my tombstone.

If someday I stand before my Maker, and He says to me "our books show that you made a serious effort to help people retire early and that you were well-intentioned in those efforts, but that in reality the ideas you put forward were incorrect. What do you have to say for yourself?" I will be feeling good about my future prospects. I have a good answer to that one. I'll just say "It's all your fault, you didn't provide me with enough I.Q points, espeically in the numbers area. What did you expect to see happen?"

I have worries from time to time that I will be facing a questioning session a lot worse than the one your comment above suggests that I may have coming. So your comment cheers me.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm entirely sincere. It's important to me to be serious and well-intentioned in my comments here. I aim to be correct too, but I try not to fret about it too much.

First of all, there are enough smart people here that, if I say something incorrect, I will be found out,. So the odds are that I won't do too much harm.,

Second of all, even incorrect views can spark useful discussion. Say that I am proven wrong in every assertion I have made on the SWR matter. What of it? It was my post of March 13, 2002, that got this ball rolling, and look at where following the bounces had taken us. Is there anyone who would say that we would be better off without the SWR insights that have been provided by JWR1945, raddr, and BenSolar?. They deserve credit for doing the research, obviously., But I deserve credit for getting the discussion going and for keeping it rolling for a long time.

It doesn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things whether I end up being proven "correct" or not. What matters is that I am, as you note, serious and well-intentioned in this matter. That's all I need be capable of to do a whole bunch of good for the FIRE community, and that is my purpose with this thing. I may end up being vindicated or I am end up not being vindicated. Who cares? We learn by sorting through the claims and figuring out which ones are winners and which ones are losers.

It's the process that excites me. If I don't think I am correct on an idea I have, I don't put it forward. It would be wrong to deliberately say something wrong. But so long as I am trying to the best of my abilities to offer informed advice, I think I am doing my job. I worry at times that I am wrong in what I am saying, but I try not to allow those sorts of worries to hold me back from pursuing this thing wherever it takes me..
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

If this is your understanding I can see why you would think the studies aren't reliable.

This is a wise comment.

All of the problems we face in our communication efforts on this arise from the fact that this is a building-block sort of issue. You start with certain premises, and they lead you by implication to various sorts of conclusions.

I am questioning the basic premise of the conventional methodology. Question that premise, and you end up in entirely different places than if you accept that premise.

Most of the arguments raised against me don't address my core point--that changes in valuation levels affect SWRs. Most comments being put forward are at the implications stage of the thought process. The things that are being said are true if you accept the premise of the conventional methodology--that changes in valuation levels do not affect the result.

The only way to resolve the differences is to reach agreement on that core question. Either changes in valuation levels affect SWRs or they do not. If they do, I am right in the thrust of my comments. If they do not, I am wrong in the thrust of my comments.

The real disagreement is at the core level. Our discussions on the details can go on and on and never be resolved because both sides are putting forward claims at the implications level that make sense given their starting-point premises.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

I view all of this as a dispute about words, not substance.

Please read this post that I have just put up on a parallel thread. It will help you understand the context.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic ... 8791#p8791

Have fun.

John R.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

What the conventional analysis tells you, I believe, is the average SWR over a long period of time. If you properly calculated all the SWRs for each of the past 100 years, added them together, and then divideded by 100, I believe that the number you would get would be something close to 4. I guess it's good to know that number. But that number is not the SWR as defiined for purposes of SWR analysis.


isn't this a completely incorrect summary of "conventional" analysis?
Have fun.

Ataloss
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

I really had resolved not to post anymore on this topic, but it's addictive :evil:. I'm almost getting to the stage of having to go cold-turkey and stay away from NFB for a month ...... but just one more post on this thread......

hocus
The only way to resolve the differences is to reach agreement on that core question. Either changes in valuation levels affect SWRs or they do not
Agree (except for the wording) :!:
if you accept the premise of the conventional methodology--that changes in valuation levels do not affect the result
Most definitely disagree :!: :!:

I do not accept that this is the premise of the methodology but what I do accept and I very firmly believe in is that SWRs are affected by all of the following :-
Extremely high inflation outside the historic range during the retirement period
Extremely low deflation outside the historic range during the retirement period
Extreme volatility of stock prices outside the historic range during the retirement period
Extremely low return on assets outside the historic range during the retirement period
Extremely long periods outside the historic range during the retirement period of exceptional inflation/deflation/volatility/low returns
Changes in sequences outside the historic range during the retirement period of inflation/deflation/volatility/returns
Starting the retirement period at extremely high valuations outside the historic range
But, and this is a big but, that does not make the previous methodology invalid. Going forward, it will be necessary to use a similar methodology, however the additional historic data now available on the extreme bubble valuations will be important in improving upon the previous studies. But, and this is another big but, IMO it is a mistake to concentrate solely on valuations - I can easily imagine inflation/deflation/volatility outside the historic range. Therefore, although I don't agree with the phrase that you use, if I'm permitted to use my own words :), I agree with your conclusion (in my own words) that starting retirement at extreme valuation levels outside the historic range affects the SWR and 4% is most unwise, but I totally disagree with nearly all the other stuff that you appear to insist comes as a package with your conclusion.

jwr
I view all of this as a dispute about words, not substance

I don't usually disagree with your views :) but this is a question of substance - not just semantics. As Ataloss
Quote:
What the conventional analysis tells you, I believe, is the average SWR over a long period of time. If you properly calculated all the SWRs for each of the past 100 years, added them together, and then divideded by 100, I believe that the number you would get would be something close to 4. I guess it's good to know that number. But that number is not the SWR as defiined for purposes of SWR analysis.


isn't this a completely incorrect summary of "conventional" analysis?
This is just one example where hocus clearly shows that he has an incorrect understanding of some of the facts - the wording cannot be misinterpreted and disagreement with his view cannot put down to playing with semantics.
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

This is just one example where hocus clearly shows that he has an incorrect understanding of some of the facts - the wording cannot be misinterpreted and disagreement with his view cannot put down to playing with semantics.


I didn't think we were getting anywhere fast. The I discovered that hocus was using his own definitions of terms not conforming to dictionaries, ordinary usage or even the swr definition from jwr. Now at least I understand why I couldn't communicate with hocus.

Unless hocus clarifies/retracts/modifies his statement it would appear to be absolutely pointless to discuss swr with him. I agree with hyperborea that it is astonishing!

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19352781
Last edited by ataloss on Wed Jul 23, 2003 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Have fun.

Ataloss
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

I agree with hyperborea that it is astonishing!

......... but fascinating nonetheless :D
............... otherwise why would it be so addictive replying to his posts :roll:
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

it's addictive

Tell me about it, KenM. It's a killer.

I'm almost getting to the stage of having to go cold-turkey and stay away from NFB for a month.

Please don't do that, KenM. Post on some other topic. If all the people who don't want to talk about SWRs leave the board, that will just make things worse.

This is just one example where hocus clearly shows that he has an incorrect understanding of some of the facts

I stand by what I said on the "average SWR" question. I do not know for sure that the 4 percent number is the average SWR. I think it may be. That's what I said in the first post on which I commented on this aspect, and that is what I said when questions were raised about it at earlier times.

No one has yet put forward any reasons for thinking that the 4 percent number is not the average SWR. I am perfectly happy to take a look at any data that anyone has to put forward on this question. I am not able to add anything to what I have already said until someone puts forward some data on why they are so certain that the 4 percent number is not the average SWR.
User avatar
BenSolar
*** Veteran
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:46 am
Location: Western NC

Post by BenSolar »

hocus wrote: I stand by what I said on the "average SWR" question. I do not know for sure that the 4 percent number is the average SWR. I think it may be. That's what I said in the first post on which I commented on this aspect, and that is what I said when questions were raised about it at earlier times.

No one has yet put forward any reasons for thinking that the 4 percent number is not the average SWR.


So this is just a gut feeling of yours? Perhaps coming from raddr's analysis that 4% may be unsafe even at some of the higher levels of valuation seen in the historical record - so you knock those off the top, knock the bottom valuation years off the bottom (where the SWR may be higher) and you are left with the average years at 4%?
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

No one has yet put forward any reasons for thinking that the 4 percent number is not the average SWR. I am perfectly happy to take a look at any data that anyone has to put forward on this question
Read the studies, hocus, read the studies.........
All the data and and all the descriptions of how the data is used is in the studies (in simple, non-mathematical language) If you can't be bothered to read the studies yourself, how can you make these magnificent pronouncements on what they contain. :D
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

So this is just a gut feeling of yours? Perhaps coming from raddr's analysis that 4% may be unsafe even at some of the higher levels of valuation seen in the historical record - so you knock those off the top, knock the bottom valuation years off the bottom (where the SWR may be higher) and you are left with the average years at 4%?

You have the right idea, BenSolar. I am basing what I said on more than just one raddr analysis, but raddr's research has indeed played a role in my thinking on this.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

If you can't be bothered to read the studies yourself, how can you make these magnificent pronouncements on what they contain.

You don't need to read the studies to gain a good sense of how the methodology works. I don't understand the details of how these things are put together. I couldn't put one together myself if you offfered me $1 million to do so. But I think I have a good sense of how the conventional methodology works in a conceptual sense. All of my claims are rooted in a belief that the concepts being applied are wrongheaded, not that some particular researcher got a detail wrong here or there.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

The Source of Confusion.
These are from some earlier posts on this thread. It is an example of a big lie. This shows how easy it is to import a big lie unknowingly from the Motley Fool.
hocus
What the conventional analysis tells you, I believe, is the average SWR over a long period of time. If you properly calculated all the SWRs for each of the past 100 years, added them together, and then divided by 100, I believe that the number you would get would be something close to 4.

hocus has been very up front about his not being a numbers guy. One frequently used big lie tactic has been to make hocus defend numbers. He does not generate them. He remembers them. He does not always remember all of the details exactly. He is always willing to defer to others regarding calculations.

Does it seem as if hocus is making a ridiculous statement? Yes. It is ridiculous to a numbers guy. But why did he get it wrong? hocus did not invent the definition. He remembered it and his memory was faulty. Why was his memory faulty?

These details are strictly from my recollections. There may be errors. It would take several hours to nail down every detail exactly. It could take several days.

The source of confusion is traceable to intercst. When he started calculating Safe Withdrawal Rates on a monthly basis instead of an annual basis, intercst reported the Safe Withdrawal Rate for each year as the average of the twelve monthly rates for that year. Intercst reported Safe Withdrawal Rate for the 100 years as the lowest among the years.

IIRC, someone chastised intercst for this logical inconsistency. If the Safe Withdrawal Rate is supposed to be the smallest of many numbers, the number reported for each year should be the smallest from among its twelve months, not their average. Yet, intercst continues to use this average and report it as the withdrawal rate for that year.

That is why hocus got it wrong. He is not a numbers guy. hocus did not spend the hours necessary to get intercst's special definition exactly right. Finding it is not easy. It has changed. hocus remembered some of the details, but not all. After all, he is not a numbers guy.

Words imported from the Motley Fool seem innocent. They are not. They contain a big lie. It is extremely subtle. It is extremely time consuming.

By the way, did you remember this special definition?

Have fun.

John R.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

swr is a numbers thing

I had made a futile effort to explain to hocus that variations in valuation were embedded in the Trinity/REHP. Long winded rambling responses telling me I am confused. Now I learn that hocus has no real idea what the REHP/Trinity studies are. I am no longer interested in educationg hocus. I will post counterpoints/alternatives to hocusisms.

Rather than the big lie I see this as the big confusion on the part of hocus
I am the most informed poster in the FIRE community on the subject of SWRs. This is fact
hocus Sun Jul 27
ROTFL :):):):):):)
Have fun.

Ataloss
Post Reply