No. of Recommendations: 1
<<It says nothing at all about starting a withdrawal after 1971.>>

Tell it to intercst, markr33 You understand this point and I understand this point. But does intercst?

I have posted on the subject of investing on this board, and my purpose was to provide guidance to people who will be starting a withdrawal after 1971. It's important that people know what sort of thing will work after 1971, in my view, because all people using this board need their plans to work in some time-period commencing after 1971.

If intercst will acknowledge that his study provides no conclusive guidance to people engaged in that task, we simply have no problem. The problem is that he does not seem to accept this. He disrupts the conversations people try to have on what to do in time-periods after 1971 by making wild claims about the sorts of returns he believes the investment allocations he prefers will obtain and he points to his study for support for those claims, suggesting that the study has some sort of relevance to this question.

He didn't design the study to have that sort of relevance. It was his choice, but he elected not to do that. He left out the data you need to include for the study to help people trying to plan early retirements today, which happen to be the type of people who tend to congregate at this board. If intercst acknowledges the limtiations of his study, limitations that you and me and a good number of others acknowledged at various points in the course of the Great Debate, the problem that plagues this board goes away.

That acknowledgement would put us in the happy position of having something interesting to talk about--what sorts of investment strategies are likely to prove most effective in the future? What a fascinating subject on which to offer our opinions. But intercst pretends not to offer opinion, he pretends to offer rational scientific truth.

Which would be fine if he designed the study in such a way as to support such claims. As you point out here, he didn't do that. So he should stop making the unsupportable claims that would be reasonable for him to make only if he had.


It has always been said that if you assume the future will not be worse than the past, you can use the study as a guide for determining withdrawal rates. If you choose to assume that the future will be worse than the past then the study cannot be used as a guide for determining withdrawal rates.

I would love to discuss the interesting subject of what investment strategies might prove effective going forwards, it just often appears that you would rather discuss board dynamics instead. Did you miss the long GWM discussion about non-traditional real estate investments ? Or some of the bond discussions ?

Taking bonds for example, I think that today is precisely the wrong time to invest in [most] bonds and I believe that the only way out of our current "debt overhang" is inflation (always followed by higher rates, thereby reducing the value of bonds) to make the future dollars paying that debt worth less to allow the debts to be paid. Now this flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of impending deflation. That said, I do own some I-bonds, but I do not hold any mid or long term treasuries, municipals, or corporates at this time.

What do you think about bonds today ?
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.