Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:     
==Introduction and caveats==
 
==Introduction and caveats==
1) The "4% rule" is what it is; I'm not suggesting it as an actual system to follow literally. 2) All the funds that failed did so for starting dates in the mid-1960s when inflation hit double digits, causing "the death of equities." As usual with extreme events, some will say they are outliers and can be ignored, while others point to Nassim Nicholas Taleb's dictum that by definition the worst case is ''always'' worse than what was previously considered to be the worst case. 3) These funds might have lower expense ratios now. 4) I don't think this idiosyncratic analysis doesn't tell you much useful about the future of these funds. 5) I don't think these results should be used as a measure of relative fund quality.
+
1) The "4% rule" is what it is; I'm not suggesting it as an actual system to follow literally. 2) All the funds that failed did so for starting dates in the mid-1960s when inflation hit double digits, causing "the death of equities." As usual with extreme events, some will say they are outliers and can be ignored, while others point to Nassim Nicholas Taleb's dictum that by definition the worst case is ''always'' worse than what was previously considered to be the worst case. 3) These funds might have lower expense ratios now. 4) This analysis isn't meant to predict the future of these funds. 5)These are actively managed funds. Their characteristics, for example in the 1960s, are not the same as their characteristics today; in many case, they don't even have the same managers.
    
=="4% rule"==
 
=="4% rule"==
904

edits

Navigation menu