Doom and gloom SWR based on 1965-1982

[hocus]

If, however, you become involved it quickly degenerates into a nonsensical anti-intercst SWR tirade and the thread degenerates into a big cluster-f**k.

When intercst put a study up at his web site, he incurred an obligation to respond in reasonable ways to challenges to the methodology used in the study. That's just the way it is.

William Bernstein was not engaging in "a nonsensical anti-intercst tirade" when he reported in his book that the methodology used in the REHP study is "highly misleading" and generated an SWR number that is a full two percentage points off from the number you get when you look at the historical data that applies. He was putting forward an honest and informed report on the question to his readers.

That's what I have done. I have looked at the data and I have determined that the REHP study is not even close to being accurate, that it has never been accurate since the day it was published. That's something that aspiring early retirees need to know about when they are putting together their investment plans. It is legitimate board business to discuss the flaws of the REHP study.

[hocus]

Use whatever planning number you like best and move on...

That's a very good statement. That statement suggests the attitude we need to take on this to achieve normalization of the discussions.

Those who like the REHP study just the way it is have a right to use these boards to discuss what they like about it. Those who see big flaws in the REHP study have a right to use these boards to discuss the flaws they see in it. We need to develop enough tolerance of other viewpoints that we can all work together to achieve the purposes for which the boards were created.