SWR paper

[fritz]

[QUOTE=ERD50;961639]Disclosure is good, but I think it is important essential to assume there is bias in everything we read, regardless of the source or any disclosure. But once you do that, disclosure isn't so important anymore since you are evaluating the info on content anyway.




I found it questioning that they would include a discussion at the end of the study regarding annuities and TIPS (copied in my original post). They were excluded from the study, but looked upon favorably by the authors. Annuities were also given the nod for increasing retirement income stream in a portfolio - with a favorable insurance company guarantee. After their revisiting the 4% rule with a less than favorable outcome - found it suspect to give the nod to another product not included in the study.

I included the authors' insurance agency only backgrounds in my second post to give everyone reading it my reasoning for making the comment of possible bias.

I also posted an attached article on annuities in my third post with advice on annuities (and what to look out for when considering them). Kind of gives no-no's like: holding too many in your portfolio, buying them when you have less than $75k remaining, or annual retirement income under $20K. Thought this might be enlightening for some..

Hoped the info might be appreciated by those following this thread, and having read the article.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fritz No, I believe it's more to the point to have full disclosure. As for annuities, not a big fan for a lot of reasons. Apologize if I struck a nerve with you (if you have a few annuities). Thought you'd like to read the following article.

I have no annuities, it just struck me how odd it seemed to try to reason based on what you think of a paper's authors. I usually pay more attention to what I think of the ideas, unless of course the authors claim to have some research that is not easily checked by reference to public documants.

Actually, I pay very little attention to what anyone says, other than to note some asset or other than I had not previously considered.

"Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear"

Ha

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fritz I found it questioning that they would include a discussion at the end of the study regarding annuities and TIPS (copied in my original post). ... I included the authors' insurance agency only backgrounds in my second post to give everyone reading it my reasoning for making the comment of possible bias. Hoped the info might be appreciated by those following this thread, and having read the article.

OK, I think we are in agreement then - it's good to be skeptical, and I think you raise some good points. I guess I'm saying I wouldn't be skeptical only because the source has some interest in the matter (few bother to publish something they have no interest in), I'm just always skeptical, and need to see that the content passes the 'smell test', regardless the source (sometimes in spite of the source).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikerdude I don't recall any recent years of negative interest & dividends from my portfolio.

True, the interest & divs keep coming in. My point was that conservative investments aren't paying much now, so if one was being conservative, you need a big stash (maybe I wrongly assumed that poster was conservative, but the 'not touching principal' approach gave me that impression). With a big stash, tapping the principal isn't much of an issue anyway.

Maybe it's semantics, but I don't see too much difference between pulling 1% out of your principal, and seeing the NAV of a basket of bonds & div paying stocks loosing 1%. That's not apples-apples either, equities are just different from bonds, but 'not touching your principal' isn't some sort of holy grail either - it will come at a cost. And I'm not saying either is right/wrong, just need to look at the whole picture, is all.

-ERD50

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Maybe it's semantics, but I don't see too much difference between pulling 1% out of your principal, and seeing the NAV of a basket of bonds & div paying stocks loosing 1%. -ERD50

This is what cognitive scientists call mental accounting. It has no meaning in the external world, it is just something people often do to make them feel more comfortable.

Ha