Don't feel sorry for me. I've washed my hands of the whole business, because, frankly, I really don't care on an emotional basis any more what PP denizens choose to be or not be deluded about. Whether it was a mistake or not, I honestly don't know. I'll find out some day when I get around to recreating the conditions that showed a -25% MaxDD.sophie wrote: I have to say I'm feeling a bit sorry for MG. I value his contributions generally and hope others do as well. What was that quote about he who is without sin should cast the first stone? I think we've all made mistakes in our posts...if mistake this was.
I suppose the lesson learned here is not to rely on spotty memory when performing a public service. But when I get personally attacked in a continually insidious manner, I'm naturally bound to act defensive and prone to non-compliance. My "spicy language" is only in response to that.
I've explained my position in another (new) thread. 30-year T-Bond returns were not extrapolated. And there are various contingencies that could have pushed the MaxDD down to -25%.The yield curve was inverted in 1969 so it may not have made much difference, but the above numbers are for 10 year Treasuries. There were no 30 years issued then, so perhaps MG's data was extrapolated somehow...with no gold and no Treasury options, the PP in 1969 is a purely mythological beast anyway. Can we all agree that a) a 25% drawdown remains within the realm of possibility for the PP, albeit rare and likely transient, and b) that if you invest in any kind of volatile assets you need to be prepared for big drawdowns?
Anyway, everyone ought to realize I've been standing on principle here. I am not anyone's slave, especially LC475's. If you want the data to prove me wrong (or right), do it yourself. I am no longer providing a public service.
