Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
YKW quoted raddr to justify 2%:raddr did an analysis on the other board showing that, if, say, the results of Year Nine turn up immediately prior to the results of Year 8 rather than immediately after the results of Year 8, that can cause a drop in the SWR even if the overall results from stocks are generally the same in the future as they were in the past. And I'm sure there are a zillion things in the 'past' that if you 'changed' would have affected the SWR rate....like the Japanese getting lost on the way to Pearl Harbor or getting hit by an off shore hurricane......Hitler being assasinated in 1937......There are lots of 'single events' and changes of outcome that affect the world. What YKW fails to acknowledge is that in the HISTORICAL record (not to be confused with the hysterical record) of 130 years of data, there are NO periods where 4% didn't work. None. Not one.If the data HAD been different, then a different SWR WOULD have been calculated. Gosh, hocus, if someone had slipped on the sidewalk in front of your house, successfully sued you for a million dollars, and collected it, then we can be sure your outcome would have been different too. I think it's bad enough to go around with 'doomsday scenarios' based upon illogic and unmath for the future, but retroactively writing doomsday scenarios about things that DIDN"T happen takes the cake....
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |