http://frugaldad.com/2009/03/04/saving-for-retirement-whats-your-number/#comment s
 
How long 'til the banning?

Quote from Evidence Based Investing on 03/05/09 at 10:58:38:

Even when drunk!
 
Schroeder

I read Bennett's reply at Frugal Dad, and I think the article and comments neatly refute his own supposed scheme of continual current value based changes to SWR. A few months ago, the record show Bennett touting the 4% SWR for planning as far too high. Now he says it is far too low. In a year or so, perhaps he will be back to saying it is too high.  
 
That kind of wavering figure is of no utility to someone needing a benchmark useful for their long-term retirement planning. It appears to me, a non-financial expert, that the information provided in what Bennett alone tagged "Old School" studies was well-defined, well-executed, useful for the intended purpose, and contained appropriate disclaimers as to use and limitations, while using all information available at that time to arrive at a single estimate fit for planning. Was this the end-all-be-all? Probably not. But it appears, even now that it is a bit dated by current events, to be far better than anything Mr. Bennett has yet proposed, from looking at his site.
 
It seems to me that the issue is not Mr. Bennett's inability to understand, it is his steadfast refusal to allow himself to do so, apparently because to do so would puncture his invented character of someone with particular standing and prestige. There are many references here to Mr. Bennett's need to seek mental assistance, and although some are perhaps in jest or meant as a barb, I can see in his posts this week alone the signs of a deeply troubled man, who would be wise to seek out a professional before things really deteriorate.

A brilliant insight by one contributor in that thread.
 
It's an accurate statement. And it was an important advance in our understanding of how stock investing works when we learned this.
 
The analytical error was the demonstrably false claim that this somehow shows 4 percent to always be safe. That's obviously wrong and the false claim has now caused millions of busted retirements.
 
We should open all of the Retire Early and Indexing boards to lying yer azz off on SWRs and all other Retire Early and Indexing topics. It's a win-win-win-win-win. I see no potential downside whatsoever.
 
Rob

That kind of wavering figure is of no utility to someone needing a benchmark useful for their long-term retirement planning.
 
We couldn't possibly disagree more, Zdeerman.
 
It is the "wavering" nature of the accurate SWR number that supplies its magic.
 
The value proposition for stocks is wavering. Understanding this is the key to successful long-term investing.
 
The problem with Brilliant Investing is not just that it causes you to get all the numbers wrong. The even bigger problem is that it causes you to adopt a mindset about investing that is directly contrary to how investing works in the real world -- an unwavering mindset.
 
If the value proposition remained constant, you would want constant numbers. In a world in which the value proposition wavers, you want wavering numbers.
 
You would not have seen anyone surprised about the price crash in a world in which Nonsense Investing was the dominant model. People would have followed the wavering as it took place and seeing how much the value proposition had wavered to the low side would have known just what to expect. Brilliant Investing numbers do not waver. They thus mislead. Mislead yourself long enough with unwavering numbers and you get to a point where you see down as up and up as down.
 
In a world in which the value proposition is always wavering, you want tools that let you know that. Accurate numbers are better than inaccurate numbers in every possible way.
 
Myzzz sincere take.
 
Rob

Quote from hocus2009 on 03/05/09 at 12:30:08:

 
Rob,
 
Since you are the only one who knew this, it was 100% your fault for not informing anyone. You spent the last decade trolling on the Internet, misquoting and misrepresenting people, and getting banned from all serious investment forums instead of building up any credibility and/or evidence that could have demonstrated the issue you discovered. Today you again used the adverb "demonstrable", yet I requested that you demonstrate years ago in our first conversation and you wouldn't. Any busted retirements due to some issue you think you discovered are entirely your responsibility.

to someone needing a benchmark useful for their long-term retirement planning.
 
4 percent is not a good benchmark for long-term retirement planning.
 
What happens to someone who is 14 years from retirement in January 1995, when stocks are priced at nearly double fair value? Say that he wants to have $1,000,000 on the day of his planned retirement (January 1, 2009) and to take a 4 percent withdrawal from the $1,000,000. He makes all his plans based on the phony nominal numbers in his retirement account (which are two times fair value). Everything appears to be cool for 13 years and eight months. Then, a few months before the day he planned to hand in his resignation, he sees his account drop by 50 percent. He is now perhaps a decade away from his goal after having thought he was only a few months away because of his reliance on the phony numbers.
 
This is effective retirement planning?  
 
Are you joking?
 
I'd rather use accurate numbers. Call me madcap.
 
Rob

Quote:

Yes Rob, it's obvious to all that you suffer from mental illness. But only you can make that call for treatment. For the sake of yourself, your children and your (ex?)-wife, please make that call today.