I think most statisticians would say the larger sample size is more meaningful, so I'm going to say the 130 year is likely more accurate.
I think most statisticians would say the larger sample size is more meaningful, so I'm going to say the 130 year is likely more accurate.
I just want to point out that I have not posted on this thread in quite some time. Someone has been using my name without my permission.
idiot investor wrote:
I think most statisticians would say the larger sample size is more meaningful, so I'm going to say the 130 year is likely more accurate.
Plan on a 130 year time horizon and you could be right. But on the other hand you will be dead in half that time. So kiss your sample size goodbye.
Stanley Morgan wrote:
HRR wrote:The point is always to match you equity exposure to your risk tolerance and time horizon. That is all.
Exactly. And that's why it's ignorant of you to belittle the investment strategies of others on this thread when you know nothing about their personal situations. It seems as if your sole purpose here is to churn sales for your Wall Street overlords.
Go, Pats!
Go Trump Supporters!
Go Fats!
Again my name is co-opted by some turd. It's now been registered. So suck on that, jerk.
Good job. Now you know what it's like.
How about me?
I'm good in Las Vegas. Isn't that like Wall Street.
Come on! Cut the Rice some slack. OK, we will go with wild rice.
You got it. Coming up with a side order of Sushi. Light on the heartburn.
So childish.
Agreed. Childish, so much a part of this thread.
Hah! Enjoy your rice when your investments bottom out. You will become Asian.
Yes, "flied lice."
I see your racist comments are not confined to Lolo Jones. You're a real jerk, Igy.
Huh?
Nice try, jerk. First Lolo, now Asians. What's next?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Mediocre runner? Hardly, she almost won the 2008 Olympic 100 meter hurdles.
Racist Igy alert!! wrote:
Nice try, jerk. First Lolo, now Asians. What's next?