cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
In looking through the wreckage of SWR discussions, I found an interesting assertion that might be worthy a separate discussion free of the other flotsam and jetsam. I'm going to say right up front that I do not know if the assertion is true or not and I'm not very motivated to find out. Perhaps someone else has already evaluated this and can affirm or deny. Perhaps this discussion has already taken place in another time zone.
One of the wonder twins noted that if you switched two the returns in any 2 years at random in a 30 year SWR run, you fundamentally changed the SWR for the worse. The derived presumption was that our historic SWR's were therefore based on the luck of things falling the right way and returns coming up the way they did.
So heres the discussion point. Presuming that this case is in fact true (confidence factor: somewhat low) does it say that returns are in fact somewhat random and we've just had good luck, or does it indicate some sort of correlation of returns from one year to the next that creates a positive influence on SWR's?
I have a few opinions, but I'm interested in what others think first.
One of the wonder twins noted that if you switched two the returns in any 2 years at random in a 30 year SWR run, you fundamentally changed the SWR for the worse. The derived presumption was that our historic SWR's were therefore based on the luck of things falling the right way and returns coming up the way they did.
So heres the discussion point. Presuming that this case is in fact true (confidence factor: somewhat low) does it say that returns are in fact somewhat random and we've just had good luck, or does it indicate some sort of correlation of returns from one year to the next that creates a positive influence on SWR's?
I have a few opinions, but I'm interested in what others think first.