A. Toddler

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@JorisHeijn The transition from a fictional-return system to a realized-return system appears more expensive than it actually is, the existing model inflates expected returns. Correcting those assumptions would lower projected revenues, exposing a larger budgetary problem for policymaker.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@JorisHeijn https://t.co/vhRfjISqvO This entire gap to fill is based on a misguided model used in budgeting . Shouldn't someone question how realistic this front-loaded model is? It doesn't account for inflation or survivor bias. A trick from the past to fill the budget gap in 2017.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@JorisHeijn In 2017 instead of allowing Box 3 returns to reflect the difficult reality of the previous 15 years, the government reached back to 1984, importing the extraordinary gains of the 1980s and 1990s into the calculation and preventing a sharp decline in projected tax revenues.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@JorisHeijn What began as a mechanism to protect government revenues and prevent a budgetary gap has evolved into a model that may systematically overestimate investor returns, making today's fiscal challenge of coverage appear considerably larger than the underlying economic reality.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@JorisHeijn The Supreme Court already ruled this fictional baseline illegal for individual taxpayers, yet the government still builds its macroeconomic budgets on this exact illusion hence 7.78% today.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@JorisHeijn If the government had used a true rolling 15-year lookback from today, rather than a calibration anchored in the 1984-1994 to 2008-2014 matrix, I'd expect the resulting expected return to be closer to 4% nominal than 5.5% nominal, and closer to 1-2% real after inflation.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@MvRooijen Then allocating 14/15 of the formula to a fixed long-term return assumption, the model smooths away market fluctuations to such an extent that it bears little resemblance to real-world investment outcomes.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@MvRooijen https://t.co/vhRfjISqvO This entire gap to fill is based on a misguided model used in budgeting . Shouldn't someone question how realistic this front-loaded model is? It doesn't account for inflation or survivor bias. A trick from the past to fill the budget gap in 2017.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@MvRooijen If the government had used a true rolling 15-year lookback from today, rather than a calibration anchored in the 1984-1994 to 2008-2014 matrix, I'd expect the resulting expected return to be closer to 4% nominal than 5.5% nominal, and closer to 1-2% real after inflation.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@MvRooijen How has the Dutch media allowed governments to get away with economic models that look convincing on paper but fail to reflect the reality experienced by savers and investors?

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@noorlanderarjan Then allocating 14/15 of the formula to a fixed long-term return assumption, the model smooths away market fluctuations to such an extent that it bears little resemblance to real-world investment outcomes.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@noorlanderarjan https://t.co/vhRfjISqvO This entire gap to fill is based on a misguided model used in budgeting . Shouldn't someone question how realistic this front-loaded model is? It doesn't account for inflation or survivor bias. A trick from the past to fill the budget gap in 2017.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@noorlanderarjan If the government had used a true rolling 15-year lookback from today, rather than a calibration anchored in the 1984-1994 to 2008-2014 matrix, I'd expect the resulting expected return to be closer to 4% nominal than 5.5% nominal, and closer to 1-2% real after inflation.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@noorlanderarjan How has the Dutch media allowed governments to get away with economic models that look convincing on paper but fail to reflect the reality experienced by savers and investors?

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@VVD @eelcoheinen If the government had used a true rolling 15-year lookback from today, rather than a calibration anchored in the 1984-1994 to 2008-2014 matrix, I'd expect the resulting expected return to be closer to 4% nominal than 5.5% nominal, and closer to 1-2% real after inflation.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@VVD @eelcoheinen https://t.co/gvg1Bog68B This entire gap to fill is based on a misguided model used in budgeting . Shouldn't someone question how realistic this front-loaded model is? It doesn't account for inflation or survivor bias. A trick from the past to fill the budget gap in 2017.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@VVD @eelcoheinen How has the Dutch media allowed governments to get away with economic models that look convincing on paper but fail to reflect the reality experienced by savers and investors?

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@HenryChenoweth @VanJeanneau which now accounts for 14/15 93% of the formula used at MvF.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@HenryChenoweth @VanJeanneau Sorry mean 2018 the they used 1984-1994 as starting points with ending points 2008-2018 at the time. This captured the most powerful secular bull market in modern history 80s-2000s, which no account for 14/15 93% of the formula used at MvF.

[A. Toddler @chard5432]

@HenryChenoweth @VanJeanneau 4/4 The Supreme Court already ruled this fictional baseline illegal for individual taxpayers, yet the government still builds its macroeconomic budgets on this exact illusion hence 7.78% today.