The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Retire Early CampFIRE


Subject:  Re: Faulty SWR Factors Date:  12/30/2002  2:18 PM
Author:  hocus Number:  88167 of 888699

The "Study" never said anything other than this.

The "study" is a bunch of numbers, and there is nothing wrong with the numbers.

The problem is what intercst says on this board about the study. intercst says on this board that the study tells you the safe withdrawal rate. It does not. He used a methodology that does not permit a statistially valid assessment of the safe withdrawal rate. He cannot possibly know what the safe withdrawal rate is by looking at the numbers that appear in his study.

More serious-minded researchers have taken a look at some of the factors that intercst failed to look at and have come up with assessments of the safe withdrawal rate far off from the one intercst frequently refers to on this board. The proper thing to do if he is going to refer to the numbers in his study is to note when doing so that the study was prepared using a methodology that produces results lacking statistical validity.
Copyright 1996-2021 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us