Annuities
- Thread starter Lewchuk
- Start date
unclemick
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Well - I'm willing to repeat myself
Show me the academic studies on annuities in journals - and the peer reviews.
Where are the expenses/commisions detailed - what are the actuarial bets involved and the visibility as to what the companies invest in.
Looks like Brewer is the only one taking a shot in that direction.
Annuities look a lot like the murky Wall Street crap that drove many to index funds.
Vanguard maybe - if I could make the case for a fixed annuity as part of my ER plan.
All others are suspect - not necessarily guilty mind you - but suspect pending understanding the nuts and bolts.
Waving the 7+ % flag in a low interest environment don't cut it. 1966 - 2004 - I've seen a lot of ups/downs and get a little suspicious of 'guarantee's.'
Annuities do have a place in this world - watch your back - understand what you are buying and why - benchmark everything against Vanguard.
When you get me a stable currency worldwide 12% - like the old Swiss ones I remember - maybe??
Show me the academic studies on annuities in journals - and the peer reviews.
Where are the expenses/commisions detailed - what are the actuarial bets involved and the visibility as to what the companies invest in.
Looks like Brewer is the only one taking a shot in that direction.
Annuities look a lot like the murky Wall Street crap that drove many to index funds.
Vanguard maybe - if I could make the case for a fixed annuity as part of my ER plan.
All others are suspect - not necessarily guilty mind you - but suspect pending understanding the nuts and bolts.
Waving the 7+ % flag in a low interest environment don't cut it. 1966 - 2004 - I've seen a lot of ups/downs and get a little suspicious of 'guarantee's.'
Annuities do have a place in this world - watch your back - understand what you are buying and why - benchmark everything against Vanguard.
When you get me a stable currency worldwide 12% - like the old Swiss ones I remember - maybe??
brewer12345
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 18,085
Uncle, if you look at the articles referenced in this thread oh-so-long ago at the TIAA-CREF Institute, you will see some studies indicating that payout annuities might increase the survivability of one's portfolio in certain circumstances. I also suspect that there have been plenty of studies in academic journals if you would care to do a search. The big flaw is that virtually all of these studies examine survivability for a 65 year old, so an early retiree is unlikely to get much use from them.
Remember, an annuity is an insurance product, not an investment. Insurance products contain guarantees and guarantees cost money. Surprise, surprise, they generally are not appropriate for those of us who prefer to take our chances and save ourselves the cost of the guarantee.
are you saying that this board is connected to the Motley Fool site?
This board is a spin-off of the Motley Fool board.
Dory36 is the owner of this site. Intercst has been named by Motley Fool the "Board General" of the Motley Fool board (in violation of the rules that govern the site's discussion boards). Dory36, intercst, and me posted together as friends on the Motley Fool board during its Golden Age.
On May 13, 2002, I put a post to the Motley Fool board reporting that intercst got the SWR number wrong in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com. Intercst declared war on me and on any other poster who reported accurately what the historical data says. That war has raged at half a dozen boards for 34 months now. I refer to it as the "Campaign of Terror."
Dory36 is the developer of FIRECalc. FIRECalc uses the REHP study as the source for its SWR numbers.
I formed the SWR Research Group (at NoFeeBoards.com) in July 2003. JWR1945 posts research at that board that has discredited the REHP study. JWR1945 has declared the REHP study's methodology "analytically invalid for purposes of determining SWRs." JWR1945 has posted at both the Motley Fool board and here. He stopped posting at the Motley Fool board because of the abusive and dishonest tactics used there to block reasoned SWR discussions. He rarely posts here because abusive posting by intercst supporters is a serious problem here too.
Dory36 has generally taken a "hands off" position on the SWR question. He has said that those who use the REHP study for guidance should build a lot of slack into their plans. That suggests a lack of confidence in the study since the study purports to provide a "100 percent safe" number and there would not be a need for a lot of slack if the study's claims were accurate ones. But Dory36 has not declared the REHP study analytically invalid.
Dory36 has failed to take effective action to stop the abusive posting practices employed by intercst and his supporters to block reasoned debate of the flaws of the REHP study. That said, this board is a far more valuable resource for learning what it takes to retire early than is today's Motley Fool board. There is no comparison. This board is today as good as was the Motley Fool board in its Golden Age, with its one glaring weakness being its handling of the SWR matter.
For accurate information re SWRs, I advise aspiring early retirees to check out the SWR Research Group board and to read Chapter Two of Bernstein's "The Four Pillars of Investing." I advise that they make use of this board for non-SWR topics. I advise that they make use of the Motley Fool board's Post Archives, but note that there is little of value to aspiring early retirees being posted to that board in the current day.
This board is a spin-off of the Motley Fool board.
Dory36 is the owner of this site. Intercst has been named by Motley Fool the "Board General" of the Motley Fool board (in violation of the rules that govern the site's discussion boards). Dory36, intercst, and me posted together as friends on the Motley Fool board during its Golden Age.
On May 13, 2002, I put a post to the Motley Fool board reporting that intercst got the SWR number wrong in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com. Intercst declared war on me and on any other poster who reported accurately what the historical data says. That war has raged at half a dozen boards for 34 months now. I refer to it as the "Campaign of Terror."
Dory36 is the developer of FIRECalc. FIRECalc uses the REHP study as the source for its SWR numbers.
I formed the SWR Research Group (at NoFeeBoards.com) in July 2003. JWR1945 posts research at that board that has discredited the REHP study. JWR1945 has declared the REHP study's methodology "analytically invalid for purposes of determining SWRs." JWR1945 has posted at both the Motley Fool board and here. He stopped posting at the Motley Fool board because of the abusive and dishonest tactics used there to block reasoned SWR discussions. He rarely posts here because abusive posting by intercst supporters is a serious problem here too.
Dory36 has generally taken a "hands off" position on the SWR question. He has said that those who use the REHP study for guidance should build a lot of slack into their plans. That suggests a lack of confidence in the study since the study purports to provide a "100 percent safe" number and there would not be a need for a lot of slack if the study's claims were accurate ones. But Dory36 has not declared the REHP study analytically invalid.
Dory36 has failed to take effective action to stop the abusive posting practices employed by intercst and his supporters to block reasoned debate of the flaws of the REHP study. That said, this board is a far more valuable resource for learning what it takes to retire early than is today's Motley Fool board. There is no comparison. This board is today as good as was the Motley Fool board in its Golden Age, with its one glaring weakness being its handling of the SWR matter.
For accurate information re SWRs, I advise aspiring early retirees to check out the SWR Research Group board and to read Chapter Two of Bernstein's "The Four Pillars of Investing." I advise that they make use of this board for non-SWR topics. I advise that they make use of the Motley Fool board's Post Archives, but note that there is little of value to aspiring early retirees being posted to that board in the current day.
:
unclemick2
When I did my research in April 2004, Vanguard was in the middle of the pack of at least 90 that I looked at in terms of interest rates that were paid on deferred annuities.
On the immediate annuity vanguard was the 6th highest. 5 other companies had higher payments all were rated A+ and up.
I looked at everything and found the best deals.
As for material on Immediate Annuities do a search on Yahoo. Just type Immediate Annuities and search!
The most Interesting thing I found on Annuities was that the immediate annuity form was in existence at the time of the Roman Empire.
Now that is time tested!
Tony
unclemick2When I did my research in April 2004, Vanguard was in the middle of the pack of at least 90 that I looked at in terms of interest rates that were paid on deferred annuities.
On the immediate annuity vanguard was the 6th highest. 5 other companies had higher payments all were rated A+ and up.
I looked at everything and found the best deals.
As for material on Immediate Annuities do a search on Yahoo. Just type Immediate Annuities and search!
The most Interesting thing I found on Annuities was that the immediate annuity form was in existence at the time of the Roman Empire.
Now that is time tested!
Tony
O.K. so I can hear the veterans of this board groaning now, but I gotta ask:
*****, could you please explain/provide a link showing me a simple spelled out example of a time in history where a balanced portfolio did not survive a 4% rate? Firecalc's number adjusts for variables, I've never seen anyone say "excactly 4% always", but just to put that aside for now, please give me a year, a starting amount, the 4% withdrawal, historical returns, and the year the portfolio goes bust. So far, the posts I've read of yours leave me feeling like I watched a late night infomercial on personal finance....words like "revolution" the "great debate" "philisophical sea change" "paradigm shift" but no numbers. Then when other posters present numbers to refute you (like 4% being tested against the tech bubble bursting) you claim that the inner cabal is just out to silence the truth, you know, like they did Kennedy and Elvis and area 51
But seriously, I'm new, I've tried to search the archives, but the arguments all sound the same. Maybe I missed something. I'm open to a simple table you could link me to.
*****, could you please explain/provide a link showing me a simple spelled out example of a time in history where a balanced portfolio did not survive a 4% rate? Firecalc's number adjusts for variables, I've never seen anyone say "excactly 4% always", but just to put that aside for now, please give me a year, a starting amount, the 4% withdrawal, historical returns, and the year the portfolio goes bust. So far, the posts I've read of yours leave me feeling like I watched a late night infomercial on personal finance....words like "revolution" the "great debate" "philisophical sea change" "paradigm shift" but no numbers. Then when other posters present numbers to refute you (like 4% being tested against the tech bubble bursting) you claim that the inner cabal is just out to silence the truth, you know, like they did Kennedy and Elvis and area 51
But seriously, I'm new, I've tried to search the archives, but the arguments all sound the same. Maybe I missed something. I'm open to a simple table you could link me to.
brewer12345
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 18,085
Uh-oh. Time for the bunny again, TH.
Here is a link to a tutorial that was published at the Gummy Stuff web site re JWR1945's SWR work.
http://www.gummy-stuff.org/JWR.htm
Here is a table that JWR1945 prepared that shows the correlation between the valuation level (as assessed through use of PE/10, the valuation tool used by Shiller) that applied at the beginning of each 30-year returns sequence and the Historical DataBase Rates for 50 percent and 80 percent S&P portfolios associated with that 30-year returns sequence. (The HDBR is the highest take-out number that would have worked for that returns sequence.)
HDBR50 and HDBR80 Ordered by PE10
Lowest Valuations
Code:
Year PE10 HDBR50 HDBR80
1921 5.1 9.6 11.6
1922 6.2 8.4 10.3
1924 8.0 7.9 9.5
1923 8.1 7.6 9.0
1933 8.7 5.8 8.4
1980 8.8 9.2 10.3
1975 8.9 7.0 8.3
1978 9.2 7.9 9.1
1979 9.2 8.4 9.5
1932 9.3 6.0 8.1
1925 9.6 7.3 8.4
1942 10.1 6.1 9.1
1943 10.1 6.3 9.2
1949 10.2 7.8 11.1
1948 10.4 7.7 10.9
1950 10.7 7.3 10.2
1944 11.0 6.1 8.6
1976 11.1 6.5 7.2
1926 11.3 6.9 7.7
1935 11.4 5.3 7.4
Middle Valuations
Code:
Year PE10 HDBR50 HDBR80
1947 11.4 6.8 9.4
1977 11.4 6.8 7.4
1951 11.8 7.1 9.4
1945 11.9 5.9 8.2
1954 12.0 6.9 9.0
1952 12.5 6.9 9.0
1934 13.0 4.8 6.3
1953 13.0 6.7 8.6
1927 13.1 6.6 7.3
1938 13.5 4.9 6.6
1974 13.5 5.6 5.9
1958 13.7 5.8 6.8
1941 13.9 5.0 7.0
1939 15.5 4.6 6.0
1946 15.6 5.2 6.7
1955 15.9 5.8 6.9
1940 16.3 4.6 6.1
1971 16.4 4.9 5.0
1931 16.7 5.1 5.6
1957 16.7 5.3 6.0
[/b]Highest Valuations[/b]
Code:
Year PE10 HDBR50 HDBR80
1936 17.0 4.4 5.5
1970 17.0 4.8 4.9
1972 17.2 4.8 4.8
1959 17.9 5.0 5.4
1956 18.2 5.2 5.9
1960 18.3 5.0 5.3
1961 18.4 5.0 5.3
1973 18.7 4.7 4.5
1928 18.8 5.7 5.8
1963 19.2 4.9 5.1
1967 20.4 4.5 4.5
1962 21.1 4.7 4.8
1969 21.1 4.3 4.2
1968 21.6 4.3 4.2
1937 21.6 3.9 4.6
1964 21.6 4.6 4.6
1930 22.3 4.8 4.8
1965 23.2 4.3 4.2
1966 24.0 4.2 4.0
1929 27.0 4.6 4.3
The tables show a correlation between the starting-point PE10 level and the HDBR for the 30-year returns sequence that follows. The PE10 for recent years is higher than it has been in any earlier time-period. That means that claims that a 4 percent withdrawal is safe for retirements beginning today are NOT analytically valid. An adjustment for today's valuation levels is needed, and an appropriate adjustment brings today's SWR for an 80 percent S&P portfolio down to 2.4 percent.
http://www.gummy-stuff.org/JWR.htm
Here is a table that JWR1945 prepared that shows the correlation between the valuation level (as assessed through use of PE/10, the valuation tool used by Shiller) that applied at the beginning of each 30-year returns sequence and the Historical DataBase Rates for 50 percent and 80 percent S&P portfolios associated with that 30-year returns sequence. (The HDBR is the highest take-out number that would have worked for that returns sequence.)
HDBR50 and HDBR80 Ordered by PE10
Lowest Valuations
Code:
Year PE10 HDBR50 HDBR80
1921 5.1 9.6 11.6
1922 6.2 8.4 10.3
1924 8.0 7.9 9.5
1923 8.1 7.6 9.0
1933 8.7 5.8 8.4
1980 8.8 9.2 10.3
1975 8.9 7.0 8.3
1978 9.2 7.9 9.1
1979 9.2 8.4 9.5
1932 9.3 6.0 8.1
1925 9.6 7.3 8.4
1942 10.1 6.1 9.1
1943 10.1 6.3 9.2
1949 10.2 7.8 11.1
1948 10.4 7.7 10.9
1950 10.7 7.3 10.2
1944 11.0 6.1 8.6
1976 11.1 6.5 7.2
1926 11.3 6.9 7.7
1935 11.4 5.3 7.4
Middle Valuations
Code:
Year PE10 HDBR50 HDBR80
1947 11.4 6.8 9.4
1977 11.4 6.8 7.4
1951 11.8 7.1 9.4
1945 11.9 5.9 8.2
1954 12.0 6.9 9.0
1952 12.5 6.9 9.0
1934 13.0 4.8 6.3
1953 13.0 6.7 8.6
1927 13.1 6.6 7.3
1938 13.5 4.9 6.6
1974 13.5 5.6 5.9
1958 13.7 5.8 6.8
1941 13.9 5.0 7.0
1939 15.5 4.6 6.0
1946 15.6 5.2 6.7
1955 15.9 5.8 6.9
1940 16.3 4.6 6.1
1971 16.4 4.9 5.0
1931 16.7 5.1 5.6
1957 16.7 5.3 6.0
[/b]Highest Valuations[/b]
Code:
Year PE10 HDBR50 HDBR80
1936 17.0 4.4 5.5
1970 17.0 4.8 4.9
1972 17.2 4.8 4.8
1959 17.9 5.0 5.4
1956 18.2 5.2 5.9
1960 18.3 5.0 5.3
1961 18.4 5.0 5.3
1973 18.7 4.7 4.5
1928 18.8 5.7 5.8
1963 19.2 4.9 5.1
1967 20.4 4.5 4.5
1962 21.1 4.7 4.8
1969 21.1 4.3 4.2
1968 21.6 4.3 4.2
1937 21.6 3.9 4.6
1964 21.6 4.6 4.6
1930 22.3 4.8 4.8
1965 23.2 4.3 4.2
1966 24.0 4.2 4.0
1929 27.0 4.6 4.3
The tables show a correlation between the starting-point PE10 level and the HDBR for the 30-year returns sequence that follows. The PE10 for recent years is higher than it has been in any earlier time-period. That means that claims that a 4 percent withdrawal is safe for retirements beginning today are NOT analytically valid. An adjustment for today's valuation levels is needed, and an appropriate adjustment brings today's SWR for an 80 percent S&P portfolio down to 2.4 percent.
So just so I'm sure I understand what you are saying:
You are not claiming there is any time in history where it would have failed ( I see one portfolio allocation and start year with an SWR of 3.9%, but let's fudge), you are saying this time it's different, o.k. got it, thanks.
You are not claiming there is any time in history where it would have failed ( I see one portfolio allocation and start year with an SWR of 3.9%, but let's fudge), you are saying this time it's different, o.k. got it, thanks.
No, I'm saying that this time things may turn out more or less similar to the way in which they have turned out in all the cases we have available for study in the historical record. Changes in valuation levels always affected what take-out number worked in the past. If that remains the case, a 4 percent take-out is not safe for a high-stock portfolio used to finance a retirement beginning today.
unclemick
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Hmmm
Scroll back in this thread to Intercst's Vanguard fixed cpi inflation adjusted annuities:
age 35 - ballpark 2.4%
age 45 - ballpark 2.9%
And -drum roll please - a little Bogle:
60/40 Vg Balanced Index - 2.53%
Psst - Wellesley - 3.6% a managed value 40/60.
Beware of free lunches - especially from salesmen.
If you get to NFB and JWR stuff - read the posts relative to dividend stategies - me and the Norwegian widow approve - heh, heh, heh.
Scroll back in this thread to Intercst's Vanguard fixed cpi inflation adjusted annuities:
age 35 - ballpark 2.4%
age 45 - ballpark 2.9%
And -drum roll please - a little Bogle:
60/40 Vg Balanced Index - 2.53%
Psst - Wellesley - 3.6% a managed value 40/60.
Beware of free lunches - especially from salesmen.
If you get to NFB and JWR stuff - read the posts relative to dividend stategies - me and the Norwegian widow approve - heh, heh, heh.
Right, o.k., and I see the way the table correlates p/e and swr, that's cool. I in no way wish to debate you on the subject, I wrote a short response only because I was emphasising the point that was unclear to me. I misunderstood that there was a disagreement on the historical facts between you and others, now I understand you are not questioning the historical data, only questioning their relevance/interpretation. That was me thinking out loud. ( I don't have to move my lips when reading, though )
):
"Past investment performace does not guarantee future results"
What a nightmare it must be to keep track of all the sells you make each month to spread your withdrawal around to all of your investments.
Tax Reporting is a lot of work!
Tony
"Past investment performace does not guarantee future results"
What a nightmare it must be to keep track of all the sells you make each month to spread your withdrawal around to all of your investments.
Tax Reporting is a lot of work!
Tony
unclemick
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
O.k, O.k.
At the tender young age of 61, you've convinced me to start a research file on annuities - got a little room in my DRIP dividend stock file cabinets.
Hate to think of myself as approaching the 65 and up zone though.
A back burner effort for now.
Boy o boy age 49 - 61 in ER has zoomed by.
At the tender young age of 61, you've convinced me to start a research file on annuities - got a little room in my DRIP dividend stock file cabinets.
Hate to think of myself as approaching the 65 and up zone though.
A back burner effort for now.
Boy o boy age 49 - 61 in ER has zoomed by.
if you get to NFB and JWR stuff - read the posts relative to dividend stategies - me and the Norwegian widow approve - heh, heh, heh.
I think that the point you are making is a good one, UncleMick. An early retiree who invests prudently can probably do better investing on his own than he could purchasing an annuity. But how many of us can afford to have complete confidence in our ability to invest prudently?
An annuity is a sure thing. That feeling of certainty that your plan is going to work does not come for free. But it is worth something, is it not?
SWR analysis is an alternate way of grabbing hold of that feeling of certainty. That's why it is important that we calculate SWRs properly. If we don't, we are fooling ourselves into believing that we have obtained a sure thing when in reality we have failed to do so. Those going down that road may end up wishing that they had paid the admission price of the more realistic enjoyment of certainty possessed by those buying annuities.
I think that the point you are making is a good one, UncleMick. An early retiree who invests prudently can probably do better investing on his own than he could purchasing an annuity. But how many of us can afford to have complete confidence in our ability to invest prudently?
An annuity is a sure thing. That feeling of certainty that your plan is going to work does not come for free. But it is worth something, is it not?
SWR analysis is an alternate way of grabbing hold of that feeling of certainty. That's why it is important that we calculate SWRs properly. If we don't, we are fooling ourselves into believing that we have obtained a sure thing when in reality we have failed to do so. Those going down that road may end up wishing that they had paid the admission price of the more realistic enjoyment of certainty possessed by those buying annuities.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
unclemick:
The most academic stuff you will find is at IFID.
GDER:
In which case you may then be highly amused by this sob story (reg required) from the Red Star. A small excerpt:
laurencewill:
Notice that ***** linked an answer to a completely different question? He has no example.
But I do. In 1666, the combination of the Black Death, the Great Fire of London, and the continuing influx of silver from Spain's New World Colonies led to rapid inflation and the failure of many balanced portfolios. You can read it all right here at http://www.swrsuckedintherenaissance.com.
I misunderstood that there was a disagreement on the historical facts between you and others, now I understand you are not questioning the historical data, only questioning their relevance/interpretation.
That's correct. My view is that intercst properly calculated the Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate (HSWR). The HSWR is a concept related to the SWR concept, but it is not right to say that it is the same thing.
To calculate what withdrawal rate is safe, you need to look at all of the factors that have affected safety in the past. In the past, the valuation level that applied on the starting date of the retirement was a critical factor. Intercst did not include any adjustment for changes in valuation in the analysis used in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com.
That's correct. My view is that intercst properly calculated the Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate (HSWR). The HSWR is a concept related to the SWR concept, but it is not right to say that it is the same thing.
To calculate what withdrawal rate is safe, you need to look at all of the factors that have affected safety in the past. In the past, the valuation level that applied on the starting date of the retirement was a critical factor. Intercst did not include any adjustment for changes in valuation in the analysis used in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com.
brewer12345
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 18,085
Yeah, Milevsky is a leading light in the field.
BigMoneyJim
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Are you saying he's an egomaniac? Maybe, but I've always had the impression of a laid back guy enjoying the life, offering some info and challenging things that don't sound right. I apparently missed the big fight that started the rift, though. I don't see you arguing with John Galt--an undisputed egomaniac--when he says someone can retire on $200k and bonds and neglecting to mention his other support factors. (Not picking on you, JG, just borrowing an example.) I'm surprised to see your acceptance of Tony2002's pitch. I expect it to be obvious to you that he's a salesman or shill for the web site he's linked to.
I disagree. I think there is a rather large diversity. John Galt, though we pick on him for not qualifying his situation enough, is as far removed from the 4% theory as possible and making it work. Unclemick dances to his music, as does really everyone else. There is no one magic formula that any group here is following. Whenever we get into a raucous discussion about it many always end up saying "well, in down years I withdraw less", "in up years I take more", "I dabble in [x]". Heck, about half of us are years from withdrawals, anyway. Lots of people run FIREcalc but everyone seems to modify the results which in reality invalidates intercst's referred studies for their situations in the first place.
The only things I hear over and over are from you. Sure, I haven't read all of the discussion at NoFeeBoards's SWR Research Group, but I've seen enough of what you propose to know that I'm not comfortable with it because it involves a lot of technical analysis and sounds like market timing to me. So I stay away from the SWR Research Group board. Yet you seem to be on a crusade to topple the 4% monster and keep trying to work it in to any remotely applicable thread.
Intercst jumps in e-r.org to post links to articles and studies and these days push your buttons (why I'm not sure), but I don't recall him repeating the same things over and over.
Care to link ten "pushing" "intercst views"? Probably not worth the effort since I'll probably disagree with your definition of pushing.
Tony2002 is obviously cutting and pasting. There are at least 4 occurrences verbatim of one or more of his paragraphs in this thread, but most caught on to the marketing "feel" from the first post. If intercst starts cutting and pasting I'll complain about him, too. If intercst goes TMF and starts selling investment advice I'll be very leery of him. In fact I asked him a while back about his interview in the TMF article pushing their [Rule Your Retirement newsletter]--that is, the article pushed the [newsletter], not intercst, but he was described and quoted in the article. I didn't see an answer, but I come and go and lost the thread. I'm curious about his response, though. Corrected paragraph: Intercst was not named or interviewed in the article, although the article says the newsletter interviews retirees and gives an example person who sounds like he must be intercst. Follow this link for clarification.
One good thing about this board is the non-agenda'ed posting community. The board has had some media exposure and gains new users, and inevitably it's attracting some shill/astroturfing efforts. I, and apparently some others, tend to jump on and expose these people fast to keep the board free of that crap. Unfortunately it has the side effect of cliquish behavior and the possibility of jumping someone who isn't pushing something but simply so sold on their situation that they want to share with everyone. That's just the way things are, and there's no fix that will make everyone happy. It's a subjective judgement, and several people are tired of your crusade so your threads tend to get trashed, but at least amusingly so.
Just out of curiosity, who are the intercst supporters? I can't think of anyone who goes along with the 4% rule blindly. I'm not even sure intercst does.
BigMoneyJim
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I'm shocked at your acceptance of Tony2002. I'd say at best he's just a consumer who bought the products he says and is so happy with the results he wants to share. Strong intuition screams otherwise, but even if he is "innocent" it's either a freakin' miracle of economics or he's getting screwed by the investment advisor.
I suppose if Erklukxxyc signed in and claimed to be visiting from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri we could ask him hard questions about their culture, geography and technology, but the odds-on favorite is it's not really an interstellar alien posting, and asking him such questions feeds into whatever motivated him to post in the first place.
So yeah, my personal goal is to discredit and shut Tony2002 up. If it weren't, the obvious question would be "where do you get annuities with those terms?" as they are quite spectacular, but that gives him explicit permission to continue his sales pitch. Not being very familiar with annuities I might have asked about what the heck he means by guaranteed interest on a fixed annuity since that makes no sense to me. Or I might have tried for clarification on the inflation protection. But no, I'm 99.995% sure he's a shill selling something from the tone of his original article, the unrealistically high "guaranteed" returns and the characteristic cutting and pasting of the marketspeak. So I don't want to hear more about it.
*****, I know you're not a casual reader. I've read a lot of your posts. Before 2002 or so I enjoyed doing so. Nowadays not so much. Regardless of past reputation I don't hold you in the same contempt I hold Tony2002. I don't care to learn more about your studies at this time, and I have several problems with the methods I think you're proposing, but I think they're honest tries and people who don't mind changing asset classes based on market conditions and like technical analysis might look more into your research. So I don't jump on you as I do posters like Tony2002, but I do tire of your pushing and pushing where people have already heard your points and decided they aren't interested in pursuing them. I quit reading a lot of threads when the "Great SWR Debate" comes up again.
Then again, I'm just a 35-year old guy with no financial training outside of the internet boards hoping to retire before 60. I've posted some real off-base posts now and then; some I'd like to delete but instead decided I'll just avoid running for public office in the future. Few, if any, should care what I say or think.
EDIT: Both posts cross-posted with about 10 other posts. This is an active thread!
you seem to be on a crusade to topple the 4% monster
This started with a post that I put to the Motley Fool board on May 13, 2002. I developed the Data-Based SWR tool back in the mid-90s when I was putting together my plan. I have become convinced in the time since that it is a powerful tool. I think all aspiring early retirees should have a chance to learn about it if they care to. My May 13, 2002, post provided them that opportunity.
That's pretty much the whole story from my standpoint. I did in that post what you are supposed to do at a Retire Early board--I provided solid information that was helpful to those trying to retire early.
All the friction came about because of the reaction to that post by intercst and his supporters. The reaction was inappropriate. The purpose of many of the posts by intercst and his supporters was to block reasoned debate, to intimidate posters interested in asking questions and exploring implications from doing so. That should stop.
I have the same right to post on SWRs as intercst does. It doesn't matter if there are a larger number who support his views or not. Those who do not find the Data-Based SWR Tool their cup of tea have every right in the world to refrain from participating on threads discussing it. They have no right to disrupt those threads. Those threads are for the benefit of people who want to discuss the ideas set forth in them.
It's a fact that I believe that intercst got the number wrong. That doesn't mean that there needs to be friction between us. If there are REHP study enthusiasts who want to have a thread in which questions re the analytic validity or lack thereof of the study are not brought up, I will respect that if they make a request in the thread-starter that those sorts of questions not be raised.
But I expect the same sort of cooperative spirit in evidence when I ask that they knock off the personal attacks and ridicule and deception and intimidation on threads put forward to advance a different purpose. The forum is here to help us learn how to retire early. Nonsense disruptions do not add; they subtract.
There is a big difference between someone asking a hard question in a constructive spirit and someone playing games to shut down a discussion. The former activity should be encouraged. The latter should be reined in by all with an interest in the long-term success of the forum.
This started with a post that I put to the Motley Fool board on May 13, 2002. I developed the Data-Based SWR tool back in the mid-90s when I was putting together my plan. I have become convinced in the time since that it is a powerful tool. I think all aspiring early retirees should have a chance to learn about it if they care to. My May 13, 2002, post provided them that opportunity.
That's pretty much the whole story from my standpoint. I did in that post what you are supposed to do at a Retire Early board--I provided solid information that was helpful to those trying to retire early.
All the friction came about because of the reaction to that post by intercst and his supporters. The reaction was inappropriate. The purpose of many of the posts by intercst and his supporters was to block reasoned debate, to intimidate posters interested in asking questions and exploring implications from doing so. That should stop.
I have the same right to post on SWRs as intercst does. It doesn't matter if there are a larger number who support his views or not. Those who do not find the Data-Based SWR Tool their cup of tea have every right in the world to refrain from participating on threads discussing it. They have no right to disrupt those threads. Those threads are for the benefit of people who want to discuss the ideas set forth in them.
It's a fact that I believe that intercst got the number wrong. That doesn't mean that there needs to be friction between us. If there are REHP study enthusiasts who want to have a thread in which questions re the analytic validity or lack thereof of the study are not brought up, I will respect that if they make a request in the thread-starter that those sorts of questions not be raised.
But I expect the same sort of cooperative spirit in evidence when I ask that they knock off the personal attacks and ridicule and deception and intimidation on threads put forward to advance a different purpose. The forum is here to help us learn how to retire early. Nonsense disruptions do not add; they subtract.
There is a big difference between someone asking a hard question in a constructive spirit and someone playing games to shut down a discussion. The former activity should be encouraged. The latter should be reined in by all with an interest in the long-term success of the forum.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
He's a good troll. But a troll nonetheless. He just wants to create dissension and get attention. Go look at the retire early home page where they've made a forum specifically to mock him. And he's revelling in it.
He uses bad math. His conclusions are wrong. He keeps beating dead horses. He redirects. He doesnt answer simple questions. He claims 'scores and scores' of appreciative followers where there are none, excepting people who dont know his drill. He claims 'very few' people who 'attack' him when in fact the balance of the online ER community is long since sick and tired of his antics.
Obviously a reasonable person wouldnt subject themselves to this .
He and his buddy dont even rely on their own supposed "system". JWR has a COLA pension that pays all his bills and ***** is still working.
Equally obvious is that "tony" is a ***** shill. Who else would make their first posts laden with the "silly 4% rule".
A 4% withdrawal rate was safe historically. The trolls only point is that stock valuations on initial purchase of equities could change that. Which is reasonable and agreeable. However his method would have had you out of the equity marketplace during the greatest bull run in history - the one that created a lot of ER's, and also the most recent run-up in equities.
Which is why people with a brain practice good asset allocation and hang on through ups and downs.
He will now argue that he doesnt say you should be out of stocks. Later he'll imply that this is exactly what he means. Then he'll lament his poor treatment. Then he'll claim people make death threats against him. Then he'll talk about his book. Then he'll claim intercast is a liar and has formed a whole community to lie to ER's and make them believe that 4% is safe. Then he'll write 340 pages of horse hooey that makes no sense. Then some people will start calling for him to get kicked off the board. He'll claim his usual persecution and how intercast is behind all of it. He'll say bans and censorship are evil. Then he'll ask for intercast to be banned and censored. Then when the **** is really hitting the fan, he'll quiet down for a while. Rinse and repeat.
I tried reasoning with him. Doesnt work. I tried feeding him. Doesnt work. I tried irritating him. He seems to like that. Wholesale assaulting him like the retire early home page is doing seems to increase the trolls energy significantly.
Ignoring him works for experienced people but theres always someone new that cant understand why everyone hates this guy that almost seems reasonable, if not good intentioned.
I called for a ban once before and it was met with middling feelings. I think the last thing I said was that we'd regret not taking action then.
Here we are into 12 pages with the troll and his shill where almost all of our energy has gone in the last 24 hours.
Any regrets?
He uses bad math. His conclusions are wrong. He keeps beating dead horses. He redirects. He doesnt answer simple questions. He claims 'scores and scores' of appreciative followers where there are none, excepting people who dont know his drill. He claims 'very few' people who 'attack' him when in fact the balance of the online ER community is long since sick and tired of his antics.
Obviously a reasonable person wouldnt subject themselves to this .
He and his buddy dont even rely on their own supposed "system". JWR has a COLA pension that pays all his bills and ***** is still working.
Equally obvious is that "tony" is a ***** shill. Who else would make their first posts laden with the "silly 4% rule".
A 4% withdrawal rate was safe historically. The trolls only point is that stock valuations on initial purchase of equities could change that. Which is reasonable and agreeable. However his method would have had you out of the equity marketplace during the greatest bull run in history - the one that created a lot of ER's, and also the most recent run-up in equities.
Which is why people with a brain practice good asset allocation and hang on through ups and downs.
He will now argue that he doesnt say you should be out of stocks. Later he'll imply that this is exactly what he means. Then he'll lament his poor treatment. Then he'll claim people make death threats against him. Then he'll talk about his book. Then he'll claim intercast is a liar and has formed a whole community to lie to ER's and make them believe that 4% is safe. Then he'll write 340 pages of horse hooey that makes no sense. Then some people will start calling for him to get kicked off the board. He'll claim his usual persecution and how intercast is behind all of it. He'll say bans and censorship are evil. Then he'll ask for intercast to be banned and censored. Then when the **** is really hitting the fan, he'll quiet down for a while. Rinse and repeat.
I tried reasoning with him. Doesnt work. I tried feeding him. Doesnt work. I tried irritating him. He seems to like that. Wholesale assaulting him like the retire early home page is doing seems to increase the trolls energy significantly.
Ignoring him works for experienced people but theres always someone new that cant understand why everyone hates this guy that almost seems reasonable, if not good intentioned.
I called for a ban once before and it was met with middling feelings. I think the last thing I said was that we'd regret not taking action then.
Here we are into 12 pages with the troll and his shill where almost all of our energy has gone in the last 24 hours.
Any regrets?
