Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know what it is and can concisely describe it. (post it!)
I dunno, he lost me after the first paragraph.
It's market timing and wishful thinking.
I've sworn a blood oath to secrecy.
Who? Oh him, I PBoxed him a long time ago.

Click here to see results so far.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I voted "he lost me after the first paragraph", but I thought I understood what he was getting a few months ago when he first started posting, and I had a higher tollerance for 5000 word essays.

Basically what he's saying is that he would get a higher safe withdrawl rate from a 50/50 stock allocation than an 80/20 because he doesn't have the nuts to stick out an 80/20 through a bear like this, and would have sold at one the the 5 year lows.

That is why math won't help him, because you can't put a formula to the human behavior that would cause him to sell out of his 80/20. So we can't figure out what his safe withdrawl rate would be for an 80/20(lemming) portfolio would be. We can only tell him what it would be for a 50/50, which brings up a number he doesn't want to hear.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That is why math won't help him, because you can't put a formula to the human behavior that would cause him to sell out of his 80/20.

Why can't you look at the historical data?

People have held 80 percent stock allocations in the past, and people have lived through bear markets in the past.

Isn't the whole idea of the safe withdrawal rate concept to look at what has happened in the past to develop a reasonable assessment (not a perfect prediction) of what may happen in the future?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Basically what he's saying is that he would get a higher safe withdrawl rate from a 50/50 stock allocation than an 80/20 because he doesn't have the nuts to stick out an 80/20 through a bear like this, and would have sold at one the the 5 year lows.

No, I don't think that can be it either. I specifically asked him, though it took 2 or 3 replies to get a coherent answer from him, if his plan was essentially "investor know thyself" - choose the volatility level you are willing to live with and then accept the withdrawal that implies. The response was (I'm paraphrasing here since I have no desire to crawl through the muck), "that's ok if you want to live with lower returns but I don't think we have to live with the lower returns when we get lower volatility."

Believe me, when it became apparent that he couldn't articulate his ideas despite the volume of his postings I tried to piece them together and summarize (kind of like trying to make sense of the babblings of the Oracle of Delphi only not so profound). Every time he shot those summaries down. Ok maybe not shot as that would take some decisive action - more like club them repeatedly with 1000 word posts.

My best guess as to his plan was that "It's market timing and wishful thinking." However, now I'm not sure if h*cus even knows what his plan is.

Hyperborea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Me>>That is why math won't help him, because you can't put a formula to the human behavior that would cause him to sell out of his 80/20.

Hocus:
Why can't you look at the historical data?

People have held 80 percent stock allocations in the past, and people have lived through bear markets in the past.

Isn't the whole idea of the safe withdrawal rate concept to look at what has happened in the past to develop a reasonable assessment (not a perfect prediction) of what may happen in the future?


In the case I'm referring to you were argueing that the safe withdrawal study was invalid for you because you could stick with an 80/20 through a bear market, and would sell at some point during it.

I guess in reality we could do a study to find the max SWR for people who go from 80/20 to 50/50 after the S&P loses 25% and then they switch back to 80/20 after the S&P gains 15% or something like that. But I don't think studying ways of lower the SWR is an efficiant use of anyones time.

BTW Nice work on the short post.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'm not sure if h*cus even knows what his plan is.

The plan, hyperborea, is to look at all of the historical data. Intercst didn't do it, so anyone on this board who wants to put together an effective plan is going to have to do it for themselves. It we wanted it to, this board could serve as a useful resource for learning what needs to be learned to do it well.

The other way is we go with the intercst approach and hope we get lucky. Not all plans following his approach will fail. Some will, some won't. You rolls the dice and you takes your chances.

Or you look at all thje historical data, and you open up the possibility of a far more effective way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't think studying ways of lowering the SWR is an efficiant use of anyones time.

You are entitled to come to the conclusion that it is not an efficient use of your time. If you come to that conclusion, you may elect not to participate in any discussion that others on the board elect to pursue.

Neither you nor anyone else on the board is permitted to come to that conclusion for everyone else on the board and use tactics of deception, disruption, attack, and ridicule to block those converations from taking place.

Decide for you, LivAboard, and let others decide for others. That's what the TMF posting rules require.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Me>>I don't think studying ways of lowering the SWR is an efficiant use of anyones time.

Hocus:
You are entitled to come to the conclusion that it is not an efficient use of your time. If you come to that conclusion, you may elect not to participate in any discussion that others on the board elect to pursue.

Neither you nor anyone else on the board is permitted to come to that conclusion for everyone else on the board and use tactics of deception, disruption, attack, and ridicule to block those converations from taking place.

Decide for you, LivAboard, and let others decide for others. That's what the TMF posting rules require.


Actually I think I'm well within my rights to say that I think it's a waste of time, but that's besides the point.

What's really at issue here is trying to find a way to maximize our SWR, and by doing so allowing us to retire sooner, or with a greater retirement income. Now I'll agree that time spent researching a new idea is not a waste no matter the result, time spent researching an idea that we know will give us a lower SWR can't exactly be called time well spent.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
LivAboard
Now I'll agree that time spent researching a new idea is not a waste no matter the result, time spent researching an idea that we know will give us a lower SWR can't exactly be called time well spent.

Who was the guy that came up with "Horizontal Thinking" in which any ideas are considered. Even if you think it won't produce any results or the results that you want, you should consider the idea to the fullest before it's discarded.

I used this concept extensively in my work and I think it's a valid way to address a problem. Maybe giving a full review of what Hocus is saying might be productive.

Mike €€
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Euro writes:
I used this concept extensively in my work and I think it's a valid way to address a problem. Maybe giving a full review of what Hocus is saying might be productive.

Mike, are you serious? Hey, if you want to talk to lunatics, I can arrange that easily. Heck, if you want to talk to lunatics, stay around. I have a feeling that we about to go on another three month lunatic binge on this board. I think "The Great Debator" is just getting warmed up in this manic phase.

I myself just called my gay hairdresser "galeno" and requested a double order of wacky weed. I'm going to need it.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Even if you think it won't produce any results or the results that you want, you should consider the idea to the fullest before it's discarded.

I used this concept extensively in my work and I think it's a valid way to address a problem. Maybe giving a full review of what Hocus is saying might be productive.


If you can figure out what it is.

arrete
Print the post Back To Top