NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

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

Congratulations
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » Town Center
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
datasnooper
* Rookie


Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:56 pm    Post subject: Congratulations Reply with quote

ES,

First congratulations for letting Hocus back in. Second, I still think that censorship as still practised here is bad. Third, remember I was talking about group-think? It appears the group has left and I am disappointed because I really like Ataloss, Wanderer, and the like. Finally, one person that has left is arrogant and incompetent so you should not mourn. Even if he was your friend ... I do not intend to become your friend but might be checking in here more frequently now.

Datasnooper.


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


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I do not intend to become your friend but might be checking in here more frequently now."

That's encouraging news indeed.

You are a Hero of the First Order in the FIRE/Passion Saving/Retire Early community, Datasnooper. You don't post to these sorts of boards all that much. Still you're a hero for what you did for us in the Great Foolish Four Debate. Your efforts there influenced the development of the internet discussion board communications medium in an extremely positive way.

There will come a day when someone will write a history of the early days of this new communications medium. There will be a chapter about you in it. If the guy writing the book asks me my opinion of things, the chapter about you is going to come first.

Your post made my day. It doesn't matter that you don't think much of the SWR concept (either the conventional methodology version or the new and improved data-based methodology version, as I understand things). You are the real thing!

And I don't come here for the primary purpose of making friends either. So I like that about you too.

Things are looking up, people.


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


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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings datasnooper Smile

Nice to hear from you again! Very Happy
Quote:
I still think that censorship as still practised here is bad.

I do not intentionally do that. I try to enforce the site rules the best I can. I've made a few mistakes but I don't know anyone who has never made one. I'll keep trying to do better. Embarassed

Don't give up on ataloss yet. Wink We go back a long way. I plan on talking to him when he gets back from another of his vacations. Laughing
Quote:
I do not intend to become your friend but might be checking in here more frequently now.

Why not? Wink Anyway it's good to hear you'll be around more often. I wasn't aware you were staying away for a specific reason. My door is always open if want to chat off line about anything. Ok? Very Happy



_________________
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Es, I think the censorship he refers to involves jwr suggesting that bpp make a post about private emails then hocus (apparently having second thoughts about deleting posts) making a big fuss about something- not sure what despite 2500 words on the subject. Formerly of course jwr freely admitted deleting data from years that didn't "fit" the hypothesis I think there is a bit of an effort to disguise this. Pretty amusing that the gurus of the "new swr" approach more or less require followers to promise to agree. By the way, the "nfb exclusive" notation for the "swr research" board is an amusing touch.



_________________
Have fun.

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


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I think the censorship he refers to involves jwr suggesting that bpp make a post about private emails then hocus (apparently having second thoughts about deleting posts) making a big fuss about something- not sure what despite 2500 words on the subject."

Here is a link to a thread dealing with the deletion of a word game post at the SWR board.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2636

hocus: "One, he puts forward a claim that "No one has proven a 4% initial withdrawal rate (with appropriate allocation and fees) has ever failed for a 30 year retirement." No one has ever put forward a contrary statement on this point. To suggest that there is some sort of dispute on this question is to play word games. It will not be tolerated at this board. "

Here is a link to the "Matters of Interpretation" thread dealing with the e-mail correspondence between bpp and jwr1945.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2673

JWR1945: "I have addressed the 1871-1920 data previously. The relationship between Historical Database Rates and P/E10 is different for that time period.

"There are many possible reasons...."

Here is a link to a thread dealing with the stability of estimates based on earnings yield, a thread which was the product of that correspondence.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2676

JWR1945: "Now compare this approach with alternative methods. Typically, those methods wildly miscalculate the dangers when entering the 1960s. The 1960s valuations were similar to those of January 2003. Look at our predictions based on 1923-1930 or 1931-1940. We didn't do badly at all.

"This is what including valuations buys us. This what using all of the available data points gives us. "

Here is a link to the "For bpp" thread.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2677

hocus: "Where you go off the rails is with the implication you advance that these posters have no responsibility to the community to acknowledge that, given the obvious reality that valuations affect the determination of SWRs, the conventional methodology is analytically invalid for purposes of calculating SWRs."

"Formerly of course jwr freely admitted deleting data from years that didn't "fit" the hypothesis I think there is a bit of an effort to disguise this."

Here is a link to the "General Guidance" thread.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2420

JWR1945: "Our approach exposes and quantifies the uncertainty of our conclusions. This makes our conclusions much stronger and much more reliable than the alternatives. Unfortunately, it can give the impression of being weaker. The alternatives seem strong only because their weaknesses are hidden."

"Pretty amusing that the gurus of the "new swr" approach more or less require followers to promise to agree."

Here is a link to the "Square One" thread, which indicates that there has long been strong community support for permitting honest and informed posts on SWRs.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2698

hocus: "Here is a link to my response, also dated November 20, 2002. This one received 33 recommendations...I believe it is a good thing to know the safe withdrawal rate for various asset classes."

I will be adding posts to this thread in coming weeks, presenting further support for the case that the community has long been expressing a desire to be permitted reasoned discussions of the realities of SWRs.

"By the way, the "nfb exclusive" notation for the "swr research" board is an amusing touch."

Here is a link to the "Graphs of HDBRs vs. Earnings Yield" thread.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2691

JWR1945: "It is one thing to read my posts and see some numbers. It is much different to look at the graphs. They are dramatic. They get the point across much better."


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well. I'm certainly glad we got THAT out of the way.

Whatever "THAT" was... Razz



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi th, I have asked for a dictionary in the past

I guess

word game post = any post that is in less than 100% agreement with hocus and jwr

ataloss
anticipating that this will be classified as a word-game-post

actually I think by nfb censorship ds may have been referring to the bannning of raddr (but I think that this was rescinded or not enacted)



_________________
Have fun.

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


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I guess word game post = any post that is in less than 100% agreement with hocus and jwr "

Your understanding is incorrect, ataloss.

If there are other community members who would like to have a discussion at the Town Center board as to how I determine which posts to delete at the SWR board in my role as Moderator there, put up a post saying so and I will start a separate thread here on that topic. I'll start with an explanation of why I deleted the earlier SalaryGuru post (part of that explanation is set forth in an earlier post of mine in this thread) and then entertain questions as to factors that I will consider in dealing with future problemmatic posting behavior.

In the event that other community members view this discussion as being better suited for the SWR board (where a thread on it already exists, the "Dead Posts File" thread), I'd be appreciative if you would put forward a suggestion to ataloss that he either raise his questions re activities of that board there or at least read the threads set forth there more carefully so that he will be better informed when he posts on those issues here.

I also would appreciate it if other community members would make note to Ataloss that there is a long history of the use of intimidation to block reasonsed debate on SWRs. Highlights of that history are set forth in the "For TH" thread. Given that the community expressed a strong desire to be permitted reasonsed debate on SWRs over two years ago, and given that a Campaign of Terror has been employed to frustrate that desire ever since, I believe that it is now past time for reasonable community members to make clear in no uncertain terms that their tolerance for the nonsense gibberish is quickly nearing its end.

The word games that were being played by SalaryGuru in the deleted post are word games that were played by Ataloss hundreds of times in the past. He put forward similar comments many times and those comments were responded to many times. There are many community members who have revealed by their own posts that they have been tricked by these word games. There comes a time when the posters putting forward comments that have been put forward hundreds of times in the past incur an obligation to read the responses that have been posted to the comments they have put forward.

We have reached that stage in the proceeedings, in my view. The community has suffered enough. All who have gained from these communities have a responsibility to help them when they are in need. Ataloss is in all likelihood not going to change his posting behavior because of a response posted by me. Responses posted by a good number of other community members are far more likely to have the desired effect.


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 Jun 29, 2004 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings ataloss Smile

I'm glad you like our exclusive special section. Very Happy

We have no banned members at this time. Very Happy



_________________
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NeuroFool
* Rookie


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 14
Location: Birmingham, AL

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Datasnooper/Repoonsatad!!

Perhaps this isn't the place for this, but I wanted to send a belated thank you for your efforts regarding the stoopid stoopid four, I mean the Foolish Four. Although I had already invested my meager savings in this silly system, your contributions made me (and everyone else!) realize that the FF was not something I should be sending my money towards. I was a brand new investor and I bought the hype. I have learned SO much about investing since then, and I feel silly to have even fallen for the FF in the first place. But at the time I didn't know any better. Because of you, and further education, I now approach ALL investing strategies from a position of (healthy) extreme skeptism.

Anyway, for a while reading the FF boards at the fool was a LOT of fun with all the volleys back and forth from you, ann coleman and others.

So thanks! Because of you I limited my stupidity early on in my investing life and learned a great lesson. To be honest it was a better lesson than it could have been simply because I had ALREADY invested. There is nothing like losing real money to make you pay attention (well, actually, I really did ok dollar wise while I was in, but I had real money at stake that was better placed elsewhere).


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I feel silly to have even fallen for the FF in the first place

I invested (a little ) too. embarassing in retrospect. probably explains my reluctance to believe secret "tools" like the swr one that is exclusive to this website Wink



_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss
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 Jun 29, 2004 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings Neuro Smile
Quote:
I feel silly to have even fallen for the FF in the first place

GreyWulff saved me. Embarassed



_________________
"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 Jun 29, 2004 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I invested (a little ) too. embarassing in retrospect. probably explains my reluctance to believe secret "tools" like the swr one that is exclusive to this website."

There is no requirement that those acknolwedging the analytic invalidty of the conventional methodology studies make use of the data-based SWR tool in constructing their Retire Early plans. JWR1945 and I have provided an option for those who care to use the historical data to inform their investment strategies.

Here is a link to a post in which I describe the purpose of the SWR Research Group board.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1158


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

datasnooper put together a well documented refutation of the ff, tmf did their part by actually having a coherent strategy vs. some sort of jargon laden nonsense

the potential pitfalls of a trinity/rehp approach are obvious. the limitations of the "secret swr tool" are unkown Wink



_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss


Last edited by ataloss on Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"datasnooper put together a well documented refutation of the ff"

JWR1945 and I have put together a well-documented refutation of the REHP study (and other conventional methodology studies).

There are now over 1,100 posts at the SWR board. Hundreds of these are posts exploring some aspect or other of what the historical data says re what is safe. Not one of them lends any support to the root assumption of the REHP study, that changes in valuation have zero effect on long-term returns.

There are also scores of posts at the SWR board that present the findings of informed researchers on questions at issue in the Great SWR Debate. The following experts have made statements supporting positions that JWR1945 and I have put forward re the SWR matter: (1) William Bernstein; (2) Peter Bernstein; (3) Ed Easterling; (4) Rob Arnott; (5) Robert Shiller; and (6) Andrew Smithers. Not one post has been put forward showing that in the time-period since we reached the valuation levels that have applied since the late 1990s an expert who is aware of the points that have been raised during our SWR discussions has endorsed the REHP study claim that a 4 percent withdrawal is "100 percent safe" for a high-stock-percentage portfolio regardless of the valuation level that applies.

When every bit of data goes in one direction and when every statement of expert opinion goes in one direction, it is unreasonable for a community of posters to continue to entertain without challenge claims to the contrary. There was a post by Nords at the Early Retirement Forum a few days ago in which he advised a newcomer to take a look at the REHP study to determine what is safe. Not one community member challenged that advice. Not one poster made the newcomer aware that the SWR claims advanced in the REHP study have been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be "misleading" (Bernstein's word).

Here is a link to a thread that discusses the changes that need to be made in the REHP study. I will be providing more detail as to the changes that are required in future posts to that thread.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2637


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


Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Posts: 26
Location: Mesa, AZ

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
. . .There was a post by Nords at the Early Retirement Forum a few days ago in which he advised a newcomer to take a look at the REHP study to determine what is safe. Not one community member challenged that advice. . .


Yes, I remember that post. And not one of the dozens of successful and seasoned retirees on that board did question that advice.

That must tell us all something. But I'm not sure it tells us all the same thing. Very Happy



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


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Not one of the dozens of successful and seasoned retirees on that board did question that advice. That must tell us all something. But I'm not sure it tells us all the same thing."

On August 27, 2002, I put forward a post titled "What Bernstein Says." From that date forward, the community (including intercst) was on notice that William Bernstein agrees with me on three critical points: (1) he agrees that changes in valuation levels affect long-term returns as a matter of "mathematical certainty;" (2) he agrees with me that the SWR claims put forward in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com are "misleading" at times of high valuation; and (3) he agrees with me that the REHP study got the SWR number wrong by roughly two full percentage points when we were at top-of-the-bubble valuation levels.

There is language in the disclaimer to the study stating: "We make an effort to be up to date and accurate." That is a pledge that intercst made to his readers. He has violated that pledge. He incurred an obligation on August 27, 2002 (if not earlier) to notify readers of the study that serious people had raised serious questions re the accuracy of the SWR claims put forward in it. We are now 22 months down the road.

If William Bernstein showed up at one of the FIRE/Passion Saving/Retire Early boards to post in an honest and informed way on what the historical data says re SWRs, would you refer to him as a troll and seek to have him banned from further participation, SalaryGuru?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tells me one thing. Tells me that I cant believe anybody still wants to talk about this.

All studies are flawed. There are no systems. Nobody can tell the future.

Read all you can from the many highly recommended sources your friends here tell you about.

Learn and form in your mind a strategy thats compatible with your needs and comfort levels. Whether its a balanced index, one of those with some play stocks on the side, complex asset allocations, target retirement or lifestrategy type funds, passive or managed.

Just keep your expenses and investment costs down, dont buy anyones snake oil, and keep your eye on the ball.

The bottom line is we'll all do what we feel comfortable with and can easily find the supporting knowledge and information to support that decision. As long as you do what you do with full understanding and comprehension.

The historical studies are fine and work @4% if nothing going forward is any different from the past. Whether you believe that or not cannot be "proven" or "disproven" simply because we do not know what the future holds. Valuations of investments should be considered, but determining their future in the short to medium term is improbable. Investing in highly safe and lower potential return instruments is a safety if you can live off the returns and you wont outlive your stash.

None of it matters a whit. Its arguments of the unknown and unknowable, there is no right answer, there is no divination, and even if you get close to knowing, some random event will make you wrong, wrong, wrong.

The REHP "study" is probably wrong (we dont know yet and wont know for 25 more years) if it tells someone that they can live on 4% of their january 2000 portfolio size. Hocus/JWR1945's study is already wrong because it told people to get out of stocks just before the biggest stock run up in history, one that created a lot of ER opportunities, including mine.

See? Maybe wrong, and already wrong.

Tempest in a teapot. A very small teapot. Smaller by the day.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is a rather tiny teapot. Anyway, I think we are talking about talking about it. Wink The valuation criticism of trinity/rehp has a point. Especially if one is required to have a tsm/ bond allocation. The long winded posts about conspiracy theories, disruptive posters, "the wave", "the swr is a number" (which isn't disclosed) don't really add up to an alternative system. Basically hocus want to talk about himself- which is what we are doing Wink



_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a recent addition to these "communities", its clear to me that none of this has anything to do with the "systems" or investments or anything else. At least not anymore. I started off calling this "jihad" and thats what it is. Both sides dislike and disdain the other, no matter what they may say, or even what they think they think Wink Its simple derivative jihad.

On both "sides".

In any case, I think claiming this "system" as a recent discovery is overblown. In the absence of other characters claims, I guess my dad "invented" it. After being a depression child and a bad experience when he started investing in stocks in the late 60's, he went to bonds and stayed there, permanently concerned about stock market valuations and volatility.

He likes the system. Its predictable. Only problem is he's hit 70, has about $250k left, and is healthy as a horse and could easily live another 20-30 years.

Fortunately I have a spare room.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » Town Center All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 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