Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-30-2004, 06:24 PM   #121
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Hello *****! A thoughtful post. I don't know the background of this
"debate - banned from the board" stuff, and don't really care to. I am a bit skeptical of "That's the way God
planned it" as it seems slightly presumptuous to me.

Perhaps there was a joke and I missed it.

John Galt
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz" proper
Old 05-31-2004, 02:27 AM   #122
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 570
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz" proper

I am a bit skeptical of "That's the way God planned it" as it seems slightly presumptuous to me. Perhaps there was a joke and I missed it.

The part that is a little bit of a joke is the reference to the song "That's the Way God Planned It" (I know it from George Harrison's "Concert for Bangla Desh" album.)

The Retire Early point is that intercst and I have been the two most prominant screen-names in the Retire Early movement since its earliest days, and it would be silly for anyone to think that each of us won't be doing whatever he can to help the other take his work public and thereby bring new community members into the fold. Intercst has received a number of book offers, and I believe that someday he will put a book forward into the public arena. When he does, I will be extremely pleased to offer a blurb for the back cover endorsing it. I would view it as a small payback for the things I have learned from him over the years.

I have every reason to believe that intercst feels the same way, and that he will be sending me a blurb endorsing my book when I send him a note requesting one.

Now, if I endorse intercst's book, and he endorses my book, it's a little silly to think that there is some sort of "bad blood" between us, is it not? That's the point. There is no bad blood, so people should just stop worrying about it. It is a non-issue.

The issue on the table is--Does the historical data back up the JWR1945 findings or not? If it does, we can forget about all this silly Debate About Having a Debate nonsense. If the data backs up the claims, there is no purpose served anymore by posters putting forward comments that might appear to some to be some sort of evidence of "bad blood."

Once people become aware of what the data says, all this personal junk goes away. That's why I have been recommending for a long time that we just take a pass on the personal junk and focus on the data. The data tells the story. The easy way to solve this particular disagreement is to look at the data and see what it says. The true SWR is whatever the data says it is.

I am trying to offer an encouraging word. This is not hard. It is easy.

There is all sorts of stuff that follows from what the data says re SWRs, and that stuff we will be talking about for a long time to come. But I have no reason to believe that any of that stuff will be divisive in any way. The divisive stuff is all at the beginning, getting over the hurdle of thinking that the conventional methodology studies offered the last word in SWR analysis. Get over that hurdle, and you get to the real fireworks--the good kind! Once we get over that hurdle, all talk of bad blood will be in the past and all we will have to worry about is what life-enriching insight we have gained access to we will want to talk over together next.

I am letting community members know that we are 99 percent finished with the hard part of this job, and that if you look up ahead a bit you can already catch a glimpse of the pot of the gold at the end of the rainbow. The SWR topic is not a bad topic. It is a wonderful topic. We just need to get past the divisiveness that has marked our dealings with that first big hurdle. The events of the past few days indicate that we are now inches away from achieving what we have all long wanted to achieve--resolution.
__________________

__________________
hocus is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 08:47 AM   #123
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

*****,

Since you are 99% done with your 'project' would you mind sharing with the forum some information on your personal portfolio makeup currently?

I am only interested in the percentages and various asset classes that you now hold. Also what would it take for you to increase your exposure to stocks. You can answer this one by comparing to the Dow (e.g. - Dow would have to hit 6500 before you'd buy stocks, at todays earnings levels)

Thanks
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 09:17 AM   #124
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 570
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

I am only interested in the percentages and various asset classes that you now hold.

My three asset classes are (1) TIPS; (2) ibonds; and (3) CDs. I have significant amounts invested in each of these three asset classes.

What would it take for you to increase your exposure to stocks.

I would need to feel comfortable that the stock purchase I was making was consistent with the 4 percent overall take-out number for my plan.

Say that you retired with a $10 million stash and that you only need $40,000 to live on. In that circumstance, I think that you will probably be fine with a big investment in stocks because, even if prices go down significantly, you don't face any serious danger that you plan is going to go bust as a result.

Now say that you retired with a $1 million stash and that you need $40,000 to live on. In that case, you may have a serious problem if you have a big percentage of your assets invested in stocks and if there is a big drop in prices.

The amount of slack in your plan influences the extent that you need to be concerned about the SWRs of the various asset classes. There is some slack in my plan, but not too much. If I had been invested 74 percent in stocks when I "retired" on August 1, 2000, I probably would be back in the work force today. It would have been irresponsible for me to have subjected my family to the sort of risk that ownership of a high-stock portfolio would have been subjecting them to.

The questions you are raising here relate to strategy; these are questions of how does one put the SWR to use in developing an effective Retire Early plan. These are great questions to discuss, but they are questions that are best discusssed after we have reached a consensus on what the data says the SWR is.

Until we reach a consensus on what the data says the number is, these sorts of discussions have a tendency to become highly confused. The problem is that different people are using the same words to refer to very different things. Some are working from the presumption that the data reveals a 4 percent withdrawal to be safe and others are working from the presumption that the data reveals only a 2 percent withdrawal to be safe.

It can't be both. The data has to say one of those two things and not the other, right? It would greatly aid the clarity of the discussions on strategy if we could reach a consensus on what the data actually says. Reaching a consensus on what the data says does not mean reaching a consensus on strategy questions. My guess is that there will always be healthy differences of opinion on strategy questions.

I think it would be a big step forward, however, if we could get to a place where we are all using defined terms of art to mean the same thing. The SWR is a data-based construct. It should not be so controversial a concept to talk about. The best way to go, it seems to me, is to take a look at what the data says and then let that be the number we use for the SWR in subsequent discussions.
__________________
hocus is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 09:32 AM   #125
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Hmmm,

I was hoping for a very simple answer, just for reference. Come on' *****, you're not running for office!

Something Like
____________________________________________
Currently * TIPS *- 30%, IBonds, 35%, and CDs 35%.

and at todays P/E levels the Dow would have to be in the 4000 - 5000 range for me to be interested in stocks.

_________________________________________ * * * * * * * * * * * *

I don't want any more theory, I'm just interested in what you're doing with it? *- Can you try to answer my question again in Just a sentence or two?
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 09:51 AM   #126
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wabmester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,459
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Quote:
It can't be both. The data has to say one of those two things and not the other, right?
Are you serious? If so, I have to point out two fundamental flaws in your logic:

1) You assume there's only one "correct" way to interpret the historical data. This is absurd. Stock market performance has more correlated variables than the weather, and is much harder to predict. To assume that you can take one of those variables, like the P/E ratio, and come up with the one true interpretation is, ehrm, misguided at best.

2) You assume you can extrapolate whatever your misguided historical analysis tells you. Not unless you've discovered some new law of the stock market universe.

IMHO, one should always question the assumptions of any forward looking prediction.

For example, the underlying assumption of intercst's analysis is that the performance of the stock market in the next 50 years (or whatever your timeframe is) will be no worse than it was in the last 120 years. That is equivalent to assuming that the weather in the next 5 days will be no worse than it was in the last 12 days. Personally, the size of the data set doesn't give me a lot of confidence given the length of the withdrawal period.

The underlying assumption of the "Gordon equation" is that the GDP will continue to grow as fast as it has during our amazingly productive recent past.

The underlying assumptions of PE10 are not only that the mean P/E is the "right" P/E (i.e., that the risk premium shouldn't change over time), but that RTM will continue to happen at the same frequency it has in the past.

The more implicit assumptions you make like this, the more likely you are to be wrong.
__________________
wabmester is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 10:04 AM   #127
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 248
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Quote:

For example, the underlying assumption of intercst's analysis is that the performance of the stock market in the next 50 years (or whatever your timeframe is) will be no worse than it was in the last 120 years. * That is equivalent to assuming that the weather in the next 5 days will be no worse than it was in the last 12 days. * Personally, the size of the data set doesn't give me a lot of confidence given the length of the withdrawal period.
I'd say it's more like the equivalent of assuming that "the weather in the next 5 years will be no worse than it was in the last 12 years.

Sure global warming or some other event might make the weather better or worse, but its unlikely.

I agree with your comment that stock market performance is dependent on so many intercorrelated variables, that to try to predict the future based on just one (e.g. PE ratio) is ludicrous.

intercst
__________________
***** puts the "hoco" in Hoco-mania
intercst is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 10:18 AM   #128
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wabmester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,459
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Quote:
I'd say it's more like the equivalent of assuming that "the weather in the next 5 years will be no worse than it was in the last 12 years.

Sure global warming or some other event might make the weather better or worse, but its unlikely.
Well, I didn't want to put too fine a point on it, but we're really talking about the "net weather" which is harder to visualize over the long term.

So, while we may have some confidence that no single year of the next 50 will be much worse than any single year in the past 120, it's much harder to be confident that the entire 50-year sequence will be no worse than the past based on seeing just a couple of independent sequences.

Specifically, we've historically seen a lot of RTM to the upside after crashes. * If we were to use Japanese stock market data instead of US market data, we wouldn't see such a rosey picture. * And, personally, I don't see anything that makes Japan *fundamentally* different from the US wrt stock market behavior.
__________________
wabmester is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"Are you serious? * If so,
Old 05-31-2004, 11:03 AM   #129
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 570
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"Are you serious? * If so,

You assume there's only one "correct" way to interpret the historical data.

I don't say that there is only one correct way to calculate SWRs. The Bernstein way is not the same as the JWR1945 way. I view both of these approaches as analytically valid. It is my hope that we will be seeing lots of additional approaches to SWR analysis in days to come.

Stock market performance has more correlated variables than the weather, and is much harder to predict. * To assume that you can take one of those variables, like the P/E ratio, and come up with the one true interpretation is, ehrm, misguided at best.

The approach that JWR1945 and I have put forward (and also the approach that Bernstein uses) incorporates every factor incorporated into the conventional methodology, plus one (the effect of changes in valuation levels). If you view the conventional methodology numbers as helpful, then you should view the data-based methodology numbers as super-helpful. We take nothing away from what is included in the conventional methodology studies. We add in a critical factor which those studies ignore.

Not unless you've discovered some new law of the stock market universe.

I understand that there are many who believe that it is a law of the stock market universe that long-term returns are entirely unpredictable. I put up a post earlier in this thread in which I set forth five quotes from Bernstein showing that he does not share that view. Bernstein is not the only one who has come to the conclusions he has come to as a result of his analysis of the historical data.
*
One should always question the assumptions of any forward looking prediction.

This is a very true observation and a very important observation, in my view.

I think it is fair to say that every SWR analysis is rooted in some sort of assumption as to how stock investing works. One simple way of getting to essence of the differences in the numbers is to ask--What long-term return does this analysis assume?

The conventional methodology assumes that changes in valuation levels have zero effect on long-term returns. The Bernstein approach assumes that the Gordon Equation provides a good estimate of the long-term return. The JWR1945 approach uses statistical tools to assign confidence levels to various possible future scenarios, given what has happened in the past.

I think that the important thing is that the reader of the study be put on notice as to what the assumptions are. Say that you as an investor place no confidence in the Gordon Equation. Then you know that the Bernstein approach to SWR analysis is not for you. I think that is fine.

I have two big problems with the conventional methodology: (1) the assumption that changes in valuation levels have zero effect seems far-fetched in the extreme to me; and (2) the conventional studies do not set forth any justifications for the assumptions made. If justifications for the assumptions were included in these studies, it would put investors using them on notice as to the assumptions they were buying into when they relied on them to make investing decisions. That would do a lot to diminish the dangers associated with them, in my view.

I would like to see all SWR analysts make it a practice to be up front about the assumptions that go into development of their methodologies. I think that formal studies done in the future should include discussions of the underlying assumptions and the researcher's justifications for making those assumptions.

The more implicit assumptions you make like this, the more likely you are to be wrong.

What you are talking about a tool that tells people the number that is 100 percent safe presuming that the future is like the past, you need to include all the factors that bear on that question. If you leave any out, you are guaranteed to get the wrong answer. It's better to use reasonable assumptions on all factors than to entirely ignore one known to be of critical importance.
__________________
hocus is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 11:15 AM   #130
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 768
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Quote:
...Japan *fundamentally* different...
Since 1871 Japan has moved from despotic rule by warlords and emperor to a relatively free society that respects private initiative. *Japan was also devastated by WWII in a way the United States was not. *Their cities were bombed, which heavily damaged their industry, and then were occupied by foreign troops.

By contrast, the US since 1871 has had more or less the same respect for freedom and private initiative, and has never had any of its cities seriously damaged by foreign bombers. *The troops always fought far from home. No foreign power ever managed to conquer us, occupy our cities, or force a change of Constitution upon us. *This relative stability resulted in a much different situation for our economy.

Unless Russia nukes our cities into oblivion, China drags us into a major land war in Asia, or terrorists get a lucky hit with bio weapons, our economy may stay relatively stable for our retirement years. *Japan's market will probably recover better than it has in the past, as long as they stay out of another major war.
__________________
Michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 11:37 AM   #131
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 248
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Quote:
Hmmm,

I was hoping for a very simple answer, just for reference. Come on' *****, you're not running for office!

Something Like
____________________________________________
Currently * TIPS *- 30%, IBonds, 35%, and CDs 35%.

and at *todays P/E levels the Dow would have to be in the 4000 - 5000 range for me to be interested in stocks.

_________________________________________ * * * * * * * * * * * *

I don't want any more theory, I'm just interested in what you're doing with it? *- Can you try to answer my question again in Just a sentence or two?
Excellent point!

Frustrated readers on both the Motley Fool and NoFeeBoards posed the same query repeatedly, only to be met with 20-paragraph tomes that didn't answer the question.

I see that we're well on the road to the same end on this board. <LOL>

intercst
__________________
***** puts the &quot;hoco&quot; in Hoco-mania
intercst is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 11:38 AM   #132
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Quote:
What you are talking about a tool that tells people the number that is 100 percent safe presuming that the future is like the past, you need to include all the factors that bear on that question. If you leave any out, you are guaranteed to get the wrong answer.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! - It is 100% safe provided that the future is exactly like the past! we already know the past, because we have all the factors in the return history.

You can never provide a number that will be safe in the future. That is why there is no such thing as a SWR only HSWR!

Could you please go back a couple of posts and answer (very briefly) my question that I posed to you? - Thanks! I just want to see what you are doing.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 11:40 AM   #133
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wabmester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,459
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Michael, the US has had its share of drama too. *But the bottom line is that both the economy and the stock market are unpredictable, *especially* in the long run. * And while looking at our brief market history (or something like the Gordon Equation which is derived from that history) may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, it couldn't hurt to consider alternative outcomes.

Just so I don't get labeled as a nay-sayer (or worse, a cybersaur), a few alternative approaches I like include:

* safe and predictable TIPS
* owning your own business(es)
* real estate, especially in areas in which demand always exceeds supply
* more international exposure than most people have, especially in countries that don't have some of the demographic nasties we often discuss here
__________________
wabmester is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 11:45 AM   #134
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 570
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

I'd say it's more like the equivalent of assuming that "the weather in the next 5 years will be no worse than it was in the last 12 years. Sure, global warming or some other event might make the weather better or worse, but its unlikely.

Just how unlikely do you think that it is that the valuation levels we entered in the late 1990s will cause long-term returns for retirements beginning from that time forward to drop below the historical norm, intercst? Do you think that we have a 1 percent chance of lower returns? 10 percent? 50 percent? 90 percent?

I think it is fair to say that raddr is more than a little skeptical of Bernstein's SWR claims. Yet here is the bottom-line conclusion he comes to in an analysis of the question.

Raddr: At current dividend yields, the chance of average or better market performance going forward is pretty small.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/raddr/gordon.htm

Your study assumes that changes in valuation have zero effect on long-term returns. Yet the raddr analysis and the Bernstein analysis and the JWR1945 analysis and the Shiller analysis and the Smithers analysis and the Easterling analysis and the Arnott analysis all say that the chances that changes in valuation will have zero effect are exceedingly small.

Given the testimony of these many other researchers, are you still as confident as you were two years ago today that the 4 percent number will work? Do you think that there is any chance whatsoever that Bernstein is saying something important when he says that the conventional methodology numbers are "misleading" when we are at the sorts of valuation levels that we are at today?
__________________
hocus is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 12:19 PM   #135
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 248
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Quote:
Given the testimony of these many other researchers, are you still as confident as you were two years ago today that the 4 percent number will work? Do you think that there is any chance whatsoever that Bernstein is saying something important when he says that the conventional methodology numbers are "misleading" when we are at the sorts of valuation levels that we are at today?
Actually, Bernstein is quite clear on the matter of safe withdrawals in this article

http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/901/hell3.htm

Now, let’s return to the above table. The historically na´ve investor (or academic) might consider reducing his monthly withdrawals to a very low level to maximize his chances of success. But history teaches us that depriving ourselves to boost our 40-year success probability much beyond 80% is a fool’s errand, since all you are doing is increasing the probability of failure for political, economic, and military reasons relative to the failure of banal financial planning.

Mind you, this is not a call for wild abandon. The above table constrains the retiree desiring a theoretical 97% success rate (of portfolio survival) from spending more than 3% per year of the initial real amount of his nest egg. Taking the accident propensity of the species into account would allow him to spend about 4%. But if you believe that we’re about to encounter a bad returns sequence or simply wish to leave a few baubles to your heirs, you’re right back to 3% again.

So live a little, and enjoy your money, for tomorrow we may be consumed by the ghosts of Hitler, Lenin, and Attila the Hun. And at withdrawals of 3% to 4% of your nest egg, don’t spend it all in one place.



Dozens of very smart people have objected to your continued misquotes of Bernstein's work (I'm not aware of any mention by Bernstein endorsing a 2% retirement withdrawal), yet you persist. Do you have any written confirmation from Bernstein that he concurs with your misunderstandings about his work?

While you're at it, perhaps you can bring us up to date on Dallas Morning News financial columnist Scott Burns' response to your open letter of Feb 20, 2004.

Mr. Burns:

I am a big fan of your column. I strongly believe that you have done a great deal of good for many middle-class investors with your writings.

I am writing to ask that you not offer further endorsements of the safe withdrawal rate (SWR) study published by John Greaney at his RetireEarlyHome Page.com web site. I have been studying the SWR concept since late 1995, and am the founder of the SWR Research Group discussion board (see link below). I have determined by making reference to the historical data that the methodology used in the Greaney study (the so-called conventional SWR methodlogy) is analytically invalid. Studies using this methodology do not accurately report the withdrawal rate that is safe presuming that stocks perform in the future as they have in the past.

The most important flaw of the conventional methodology is that it makes no adjustment in the SWR for changes in valuation levels. William Bernstein says in his book “The Four Pillars of Investing” that changes in valuation levels affect future returns as a matter of “mathematical certainty (page 12),” and that, therefore, the historical return data examined in conventional methodology SWR studies “can, at times, be misleading (page 43).” Since the late 1990s, we have been living in the sorts of times during which the problem is a serious one......


As you know, Scott Burns has a degree from MIT and has been writing about financial topics for about 30 years. Surely if there was anything of substance in your ravings, you would have heard from him by now.

I await a much coveted one or two sentence response, but I'm not hopeful.

intercst


__________________
***** puts the &quot;hoco&quot; in Hoco-mania
intercst is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 12:27 PM   #136
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Hello intercst! Even though your post was not
directed at me, just a quickie.................I have run the
numbers backward and forward, listened to the pundits,
potentates and pontificators. I truly believe that
(overall) the 4% SWR is about as good as mere mortals can do, given the available data.

John Galt
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 12:35 PM   #137
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Quote:

Excellent point!

Frustrated readers on both the Motley Fool and NoFeeBoards posed the same query repeatedly, only to be met with 20-paragraph tomes that didn't answer the question.

I see that we're well on the road to the same end on this board. <LOL>

intercst
*****,

Since you have read my very simple question and refuse to answer it or acknowledge it, I for one will not be participating in your silly games.

You came to this board and were basically welcomed. I now understand the 'bad blood' on the other forums. I will no longer read your posts or respond to you on this forum. I am already bored with you and your posts.

I suggest that you get a girlfriend.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Re:  Meteorological persistence & problem posters
Old 05-31-2004, 12:39 PM   #138
Moderator Emeritus
Nords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,616
Re:  Meteorological persistence & problem posters

The prime gold standard of weather forecasting to which all meteorologists aspire is "Persistence". Persistence says that tomorrow's weather will be the same as today's weather (or whatever forecast period you're using). The attractive thing about Persistence is that no one has to argue about units, timeframes, locations, data quality, or any of that crap.

Persistence has a better record than EVERY meteorologist, human or machine, who/that has ever published a forecast. And Persistence is only logging about 50%.

BTW, Bernstein's "Retirement Calculator from Hell" is my favorite on the subject. And I believe that quantifying anything over an 80% success rate over the rest of my life-- or at least the next 30 years-- is an exercise in rising frustration and diminishing validity. I think Persistence will beat all the other forecast techniques there, too.

Intercst, you're a moderator and you know *****. Presumably your experience and background gives you the potential to avoid being dragged into this shouting match. It's hard to believe that you're worried he'll somehow kill off this board (or your board), and it's disappointing to see you indulge in the unprofessional behavior of baiting him. It's exceptionally disappointing to watch you rise to this troll's bait. You're the responsible adult in this childish diatribe, you've made your point, and it's time to move on to other topics instead of validating *****' "jihad".

Dory36, I know this isn't your fault, but I have a software question. Instead of allowing others to give problem posters a podium (or even worse, martyrdom), could YABB add an "Ignore" feature like M*?
__________________
*
*

The book written on E-R.org, "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement", on sale now! For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I don't spend much time here anymore, so please send me a PM. Thanks.
Nords is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"
Old 05-31-2004, 12:43 PM   #139
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 570
Re: Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

Scott Burns has a degree from MIT and has been writing about financial topics for about 30 years. Surely if there was anything of substance in your ravings, you would have heard from him by now.

Scott Burns and I have exchanged a number of e-mails on various SWR questions since I sent to him the e-mail you quoted above. I have not yet requested his permission to report on that correspondence to the Retire Early board community. I will take a small chance here and report a small snippet of one of his e-mails to me. I will send him an e-mail tomorrow morning (since today is a holiday) and let him know that I quoted him here on this one point.

Scott Burns: "I agree with you and like the thought process.... I would like to talk with you and write a column on the subject....What's your phone number?"
__________________
hocus is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: *Meteorological persistence & problem posters
Old 05-31-2004, 12:58 PM   #140
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 248
Re: *Meteorological persistence & problem posters

Quote:
The prime gold standard of weather forecasting to which all meteorologists aspire is "Persistence". *Persistence says that tomorrow's weather will be the same as today's weather (or whatever forecast period you're using). *The attractive thing about Persistence is that no one has to argue about units, timeframes, locations, data quality, or any of that crap. *

Persistence has a better record than EVERY meteorologist, human or machine, who/that has ever published a forecast. *And Persistence is only logging about 50%.

BTW, Bernstein's "Retirement Calculator from Hell" is my favorite on the subject. *And I believe that quantifying anything over an 80% success rate over the rest of my life-- or at least the next 30 years-- is an exercise in rising frustration and diminishing validity. *I think Persistence will beat all the other forecast techniques there, too.

Intercst, you're a moderator and you know *****. *Presumably your experience and background gives you the potential to avoid being dragged into this shouting match. *It's hard to believe that you're worried he'll somehow kill off this board (or your board), and it's disappointing to see you indulge in the unprofessional behavior of baiting him. *It's exceptionally disappointing to watch you rise to this troll's bait. *You're the responsible adult in this childish diatribe, you've made your point, and it's time to move on to other topics instead of validating *****' "jihad". *

Dory36, I know this isn't your fault, but I have a software question. *Instead of allowing others to give problem posters a podium (or even worse, martyrdom), could YABB add an "Ignore" feature like M*?
The "***** problem" on the Motley Fool and NoFeeBoards wasn't solved until about 75% of the participants reached the conclusion that he wasn't posting anything of value and tired of the disruption.

I suspect you'll need the same consensus on this board before any corrective action is taken.

intercst
__________________

__________________
***** puts the &quot;hoco&quot; in Hoco-mania
intercst is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yahoo Finance's new charting feature. Ed_The_Gypsy FIRE and Money 4 12-29-2006 01:00 PM
Help me save yahoo finance... laurence Young Dreamers 103 10-31-2006 03:01 PM
Amazon, yahoo, google threaten ebays business cute fuzzy bunny Other topics 0 06-22-2005 06:01 PM
Form a Yahoo! Group to share Excel/other files? MooreBonds Other topics 1 12-19-2004 09:36 AM
"The True Happiness Growth Quiz" Nords Life after FIRE 6 12-16-2004 04:14 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.