new retire early home page article

[intercst]

No, his research is not bogus but I do believe that it suffers from some flaws

Thanks very much for your response, raddr.

But at least he doesn't misapply statistics and discard inconvenient time periods like I see being routinely done on the SWR "Research" board.

I understand that you don't agree with JWR1945's findings. That is of course your right. I would like to see you open your board (raddr-pages.com) to input from both JWR1945 and me so that your readers could hear the other side of the story. I would also very much like to see you provide your input to the SWR Research Group (where I am the moderator). I don't want people to take JWR1945's findings on faith. I would like to see other Numbers Guys challenge it, just as I (a non-Numbers Guy) have challenged the REHP study. But I really think we all would enjoy more of a learning experience if the challenges raised were put forward as part of a reasoned back-and-forth exchange between JWR1945 and his critics.

The SWR Research Group board is a community resource. Anyone may participate. No one is required to participate, of course. But any member of any of the various FIRE/Retire Early posting communities will receive a warm welcome there. UncleMick put up a fine post there yesterday where he commented on how there are "acres of diamonds" to be discovered in mining the historical data. There are some things that UncleMick and me agree on and there are some things on which we do not. But we are soul mates on that one. On the most important question, his arrow hits the target right in the center of the red.

Haven't the members of the "various FIRE/Retire Early posting communities" already voiced their opinion on the quality of the content of the SWR Research Group by their continued absence?

It's not like anyone doesn't know where to find it. <LOL>

intercst

 

[hocus]

Haven't the members of the "various FIRE/Retire Early posting communities" already voiced their opinion on the quality of the content of the SWR Research Group by their continued absence?

Very few participate at the SWR board today, that's fair to say. If there are any in this community interested in giving the board a look (we are at NoFeeBoards.com), or in putting forward a question or comment on the work being done there, I would be most grateful.

I don't at all agree with the suggestion being put forward here that the lack of community participation is some sort of comment on the quality of JWR1945's research. JWR1945 has a long history in the community and his work has generated many expressions of community gratitude everywhere he has posted it. I'm confident that participation at the SWR board will increase in days to come and that JWR1945 will receive the recognition that he deserves for his many fine contributions to our learning experience.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

If there are any in this community interested in giving the board a look (we are at NoFeeBoards.com), or in putting forward a question or comment on the work being done there, I would be most grateful.

Not interested, but I know where it is if I ever get curious.

I don't at all agree with the suggestion being put forward here that the lack of community participation is some sort of comment on the quality of JWR1945's research.

Which begs the question: to what do you attribute the lack of community participation?

 

[hocus]

To what do you attribute the lack of community participation?

That's a perfectly reasonable question, BigMoneyJim. But my sense of things is that it is better if I don't go into it in any depth at this forum. If you or anyone else is sufficiently curious to post the question at the SWR board, I will respond there.

The short version is that lots of people showed lots of interest in exploring the realities of SWRs at the NFB site. But there were also lots of complications that made effective communication difficult. In time I believe that people will once again feel comfortable asking questions and making comments and so forth. When that happens, we have a large backlog of great research to discuss and explore.

We are not waiting around for people to show up before moving ahead on the work that needs to be done. But the quality of the work product would be a lot higher if a greater number of viewpoints were being voiced. JWR1945 is the best. But no one person knows it all. He needs feedback and he needs questions and he needs challengess that force him to dig deep to come up with good answers. He is the most knowledgeable Numbers Guy in the community, in my estimation. We should all be grateful for having access to his expertise and we all should want to do what we can to see that the community is able to tap into that expertise to the greatest extent possible.

 

[unclemick]

Well I've given him a few to work and he done good.

Or the flip side JWR's numbers bucked me up on 'hobby stocks'.

I now have a 'high class' DRIP dividend strategy - heh,heh,heh.

Being blockheaded - I would have continued regardless -
but the numbers came in showing some merit to the method.

And due to all the screaming and yelling - I became interested in all three: here, Raddr's and NFB - with good stuff popping up to cogitate - all three places.

 

[unclemick]

Securities and Exchange Commision. The govt. referee's for the stock market.