ANYTHING WADE PFAU SAYS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SAGE ADVICE! Haha seriously though, this man is a legend. His work around retirement income planning and the RICP program is at the frontier of managing retirement risk for Americans. Great guy and great interview!
Wade was great, as usual. Having the hosts frequently interrupting or even talking over each other, not so much. I had to stop listening half way through…
Very illuminating as to what he has NOT done in terms of analysis, but I wish you had pushed it further to get the whole truth out when he began dodging some of your questions. (Starting at about 1:01 and even more so at 1:05.) In particular, it appears he assumes that all stock/bond (S&P 500/total bond) portfolios have basically the same safe withdrawal rates across the board and has never bothered to analyze the safe withdrawal rates of more diversified portfolios. And when you poked at it, all he came back with was some babble about some theoretical models allowing somebody to "assume whatever you want" instead of just admitting that he had not done that work. I hope you guys follow up on this because its an endemic problem in the financial services industry, particularly those advisors who want to default people to annuities and structured products instead of doing proper portfolio diversification beyond simple stock/bond ratios. Although you tried to throw him a bone at 1:07 saying that his framework can accommodate your approach, in fact his framework does not get anywhere close to it because he has assiduously avoided doing the work that would disprove his "all portfolios have the same safe withdrawal rate" thesis. I know you guys need to be polite, so perhaps you can address this issue at some other time and place.
@@mikeglozier9001 "Actuarial Science" as applied to life and death insurance on individuals kis largely just a relatively simple expansion on a set of functions discovered in the 19th Century by Gompertz and others. And the only annuities that economists like are either simple or the ones that don't exist outside social security (inflation-adjusted). What is really going on here is the math of marketing and profiteering, not science. The truth is that almost no clients actually use these more complicated indexed and variable nonsense products the way they are intended, which is to start taking an income stream from them at some point. So their real purpose ends up being fee and commission capture, now with a pop psychology quiz bolted on the front to make you feel better about them.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
ANYTHING WADE PFAU SAYS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SAGE ADVICE! Haha seriously though, this man is a legend. His work around retirement income planning and the RICP program is at the frontier of managing retirement risk for Americans. Great guy and great interview!
One lead host would have been better, the interruptions plus lag made this interview uncomfortable.
Wade was great, as usual. Having the hosts frequently interrupting or even talking over each other, not so much. I had to stop listening half way through…
Very illuminating as to what he has NOT done in terms of analysis, but I wish you had pushed it further to get the whole truth out when he began dodging some of your questions. (Starting at about 1:01 and even more so at 1:05.) In particular, it appears he assumes that all stock/bond (S&P 500/total bond) portfolios have basically the same safe withdrawal rates across the board and has never bothered to analyze the safe withdrawal rates of more diversified portfolios. And when you poked at it, all he came back with was some babble about some theoretical models allowing somebody to "assume whatever you want" instead of just admitting that he had not done that work.
I hope you guys follow up on this because its an endemic problem in the financial services industry, particularly those advisors who want to default people to annuities and structured products instead of doing proper portfolio diversification beyond simple stock/bond ratios. Although you tried to throw him a bone at 1:07 saying that his framework can accommodate your approach, in fact his framework does not get anywhere close to it because he has assiduously avoided doing the work that would disprove his "all portfolios have the same safe withdrawal rate" thesis.
I know you guys need to be polite, so perhaps you can address this issue at some other time and place.
wade has written several books. please read them.
@@hhuuzzzzaahh He won't. He hates insurance guys.
There is a math and science reason why advisors want to "default people to annuities."
@@mikeglozier9001 "Actuarial Science" as applied to life and death insurance on individuals kis largely just a relatively simple expansion on a set of functions discovered in the 19th Century by Gompertz and others. And the only annuities that economists like are either simple or the ones that don't exist outside social security (inflation-adjusted).
What is really going on here is the math of marketing and profiteering, not science. The truth is that almost no clients actually use these more complicated indexed and variable nonsense products the way they are intended, which is to start taking an income stream from them at some point. So their real purpose ends up being fee and commission capture, now with a pop psychology quiz bolted on the front to make you feel better about them.