Hi Michael,

> I am not saying the offset cannot change.
> But, from my understanding, he has changed
> the offset for the entire time period. He
> has not adjusted the offset as time has gone
> along.

> So the first chart was offset by 49 years.
> Now his new chart didn't fit he had to
> change the entire chart's offset by 46.5
> years. THAT is changing his chart to fit
> what he want to prove.

> Doing that, I bet I could make a radom ECG
> stip match the stocks.

Doesn't changing the age from 46.5 to 49 only shift the graph left or right?

Here's a random ECG strip....



How will you make this fit the Dow Jones Index?

> I also question his peak spending idea...

> At 49 (or 46.5) most parents don't have kids
> living at home. Certainly not the Boomers.
> Tha would mean, if they had a child at 25,
> the child is 21-24 and at home.

> That's a little unrealistic in my opinion.

Should it be the average age of having the FIRST child, or the average age of having the "average" child? (Eg. if you had 3 kids, you would have to take the age at having each of the 3 kids, then taking the average.)

For example, when he had children, my Dad was aged 29, 31, and 40. If we were using him as an example, should we take age 29 as the key figure (the age he had his first child), or the average age of these three ages - that is, (29+31+40)/3 = 33.3 ?

Further questions.... Does a child have to live at home to be supported by their parents? What about children who are university students?

In the USA, the culture is such that usually children leave home to go to university (often in a different city or state). However, these kids are still often supported by their parents. Could that affect their parents' spending, even if the kids are not living at home?

> I think he is finding arguements to fit his
> model. And I am sure we could find equally
> strong prof that peak spending happens at
> other times instead.

> Yes. That's what I said... just knowing
> about it changes it.

> The

> If that is the case, then the peak spending
> reason why goes out the door. How would he
> adjust for that? Change the offset again,
> perhaps :o))

> I actually find it interesting. A piece of
> info to keep up my sleeve and bring out and
> consider.

> One thing I wonder... seeing as the
> stockmarket didn't go as high as he said...
> and it goes as low... that wold keep it
> about it's current level for the next whole
> bunch of years, wouldn't it?

> I wonder why the mainstream hasn't picked up
> on his theory?

I was told (by a friend who's read it) that Kiyosaki's latest book seems to draw on Dent's theories. (I haven't read it myself though.)

> On another note... Beating The Streat (Peter
> Lynch). Have you read it? Would you
> recommend it as a good book for a novice
> know-nothing-about-the-stockmarket guy like
> me?

Yeah, it's a good book. :)

- Dien