NoFeeBoards.com!

It is time to invite hocus back to these boards. His views have been vindicated. They are accurate.

We have all suffered from the nasty run-them-out-of-Dodge, wild-west-gunslinger operation that got him expelled. The aftereffects linger unto this day. They are the reason that so many people are unwilling to post. They know what can happen to them. They have seen what has happened to others.

Yet, I still read offensive, inflammatory language on the FIRE Board FAQS. Make no mistake. They were meant to be offensive. They were clearly identified as such at the Motley Fool discussion boards. BenSolar suggested alternative wording. His words were not accepted.

I take the words in the FIRE Board FAQS as a personal affront.

It is trivially simple and easy for people to back away from their previous positions. They don't even have to acknowledge guilt. They can easily refer to the heat of the moment.

The nofeeboards are continuing to destroy themselves. We must stop that. It is time to invite hocus back to these boards.

Have fun.

John R.

asdf

Validity

Make no mistake about it.

The conventional methodology is INVALID because its ANALYTICAL approach is faulty. That is what I pointed out recently. http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic ... 760#p16760

The conventional methodology was shown to be INVALID for purposes of determining SAFE WITHDRAWAL RATES several months ago. Today's valuations and dividend yields are both outside of the historical range.

Any relationship between the numbers generated by the conventional methodology and Safe Withdrawal Rates is purely coincidental. The previous studies are flawed.

That does not mean that the conventional methodology failed to produce anything of value. It has produced quite a bit of value. In addition, the historical sequence approach is powerful and helpful. It can provide us with tremendous insights. But it is not exactly the same as the conventional methodology.

The Monte Carlo approach is helpful as well. It has been tremendously valuable. It can still be improved upon to reach an even higher level of fidelity.

The historical sequence method, the Monte Carlo method and direct mathematical calculation are complementary. They all have great value.

Have fun.

John R.

asdf

My distinctions are distinctions of fact. Not opinions. Not personalities.

Hocus has been vindicated by the facts. The evidence is on these boards.

Advocates of the conventional methodology are forever trying to confuse people by characterizing facts as opinions and resistance to accepting the facts as conflicts of personalities.

John R.