Hi Dan, Do you work for Boldin? I'm wondering why its defenders are so ardent? If you like a tool that tells you to set your own future spending no matter its affordability, that assumes that spending will remain fixed year after year no matter what happens to your assets, that runs Monte Carlo simulations based on unclear assumptions about your portfolio, that can't handle cash-flow constraints facing roughly two thirds of the population, that pretends users will have large sums at the end of their days by displaying results in nominal, not real dollars, that appears to get Roth conversions terribly wrong, and that directly contradicts basic precepts of financial economics, including consumption smoothing and adjusting to changes in circumstances immediately, not after you run out of money, well, see how well that works out for you. best, Larry
Usually when I see someone this defensive; that is where the problem lies. Your being an economist (trained non the less) does not make your software the only software that should and could be used. Get over it.
If you want to use a tape measure to estimate the volume of a complex shape because you understand a tape measure and don’t care that the margin of error is huge, you should be free - but forewarned - to do so. I don’t think it’s defensive to cite the intellectual capital that is the foundation of a tool that makes a vastly superior estimator. I appreciate that he elegantly explains the difference and the conflict of interest in the industry providing the feeble alternatives.
I looked at the quoted patent description for ESP Planner. It's impressive - congratulations to Larry. Well done. Although I am just an average user of MaxiFi (smoothed spending in retirement + veryfying some timing options for discretionary spending) - I can appreciate amount of work going into algorithms to cover frequently non-numerical rules. Serious work - and I say this based on my "own" 14 utility patents in technical fields.
This is a fascinating dive Larry. Understanding these nuanced approaches like MaxiFi’s use of dynamic programming and life-cycle optimization could be a game changer for maximizing your financial planning. Thanks Larry.
I don’t interpret reasoned rebuttal of criticism as defensive. Yes, many different software programs “could” be used, as I have done. Personally, I feel the one that should be used is that which attempts to tackle a highly complex and interwoven problem with the most comprehensive tool available.
My pleasure. best, Larry
Many thanks, Peter. best, Larry
Hi Dan, Do you work for Boldin? I'm wondering why its defenders are so ardent? If you like a tool that tells you to set your own future spending no matter its affordability, that assumes that spending will remain fixed year after year no matter what happens to your assets, that runs Monte Carlo simulations based on unclear assumptions about your portfolio, that can't handle cash-flow constraints facing roughly two thirds of the population, that pretends users will have large sums at the end of their days by displaying results in nominal, not real dollars, that appears to get Roth conversions terribly wrong, and that directly contradicts basic precepts of financial economics, including consumption smoothing and adjusting to changes in circumstances immediately, not after you run out of money, well, see how well that works out for you. best, Larry
Usually when I see someone this defensive; that is where the problem lies. Your being an economist (trained non the less) does not make your software the only software that should and could be used. Get over it.
If you want to use a tape measure to estimate the volume of a complex shape because you understand a tape measure and don’t care that the margin of error is huge, you should be free - but forewarned - to do so. I don’t think it’s defensive to cite the intellectual capital that is the foundation of a tool that makes a vastly superior estimator. I appreciate that he elegantly explains the difference and the conflict of interest in the industry providing the feeble alternatives.
I looked at the quoted patent description for ESP Planner. It's impressive - congratulations to Larry. Well done. Although I am just an average user of MaxiFi (smoothed spending in retirement + veryfying some timing options for discretionary spending) - I can appreciate amount of work going into algorithms to cover frequently non-numerical rules. Serious work - and I say this based on my "own" 14 utility patents in technical fields.
This is a fascinating dive Larry. Understanding these nuanced approaches like MaxiFi’s use of dynamic programming and life-cycle optimization could be a game changer for maximizing your financial planning. Thanks Larry.
I don’t interpret reasoned rebuttal of criticism as defensive. Yes, many different software programs “could” be used, as I have done. Personally, I feel the one that should be used is that which attempts to tackle a highly complex and interwoven problem with the most comprehensive tool available.