I’ve posted Podcast #115 to the “RobCasts” section of the site. It’s called Internet Censorship Is An Investment Topic.
Stock markets, like people, get on the wrong track from time to time. There are of course lots of things that lots of us can do to help get them back on track. When we censor discussion of the factors sending the market off track, we hinder efforts at fixing problems before they get out of hand. It’s human to want to ignore bad stuff we see going on around us. It’s usually a bad idea to give in to that human impulse.
John Walter Russell says
Rob,
“Sirschnitz” pronunciation. It is “Sir Schnitz.”
Russ took this from Beatle Bailey. He identifies himself with Sgt. Schnitz, but he wanted to be an officer.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
John Walter Russell says
Rob,
On Today’s Passion, Dave Shafer’s article is highly credible. The Bogleheads are very restrictive.
At least he lasted three days.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
John Walter Russell says
Rob,
It speaks poorly of the academic community that they still use the Efficient Market Hypothesis jargon. They know it is wrong. But they must give lip service to publish. They must publish to survive.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
Rob says
It is “Sir Schnitz.”
Russ took this from Beatle Bailey. He identifies himself with Sgt. Schnitz, but he wanted to be an officer.
Thank you, John.
I apologize to Beatle Bailey fans everywhere.
Rob
Rob says
The Bogleheads are very restrictive.
It goes beyond being restrictive. The problem is dishonesty and intolerance and hate.
One of the claims made to justify the banning is that Dave “lies.” Translated into human, this means that he disagrees with some investing viewpoint held by Mel Lindauer.
To say that Dave “lies” is an act of defamation. I do not approve.
JohnDCraig once pointed out that Mel is a published author and that he should start acting like one. I think it would be fair to say that JohnDCraig was one of the best friends that Mel had in that board community (I like to think that I am also in that group).
Rob
Rob says
They know it is wrong. But they must give lip service to publish. They must publish to survive.
The millions of middle-class investors who are likely going to suffer busted retirements because of the demonstrably false claims advanced in the Old School retirement studies have a legitimate interest in survival too.
I think we need to start calling the people who promote these “studies” on their nonsense.
The purpose of a legitimate “study” is to identify the realities. If you demonstrate by subsequent behavior that you have no interest in knowing the realities, I think it is fair to question whether you ever engaged in activity that can properly be referred to as “study.” Generating support materials for a marketing campaign by playing with a methodology until it generates the results needed is not the same thing as legitimate academic research.
The problem is not that The Stock-Selling Industry works hard to sell us stocks, even when they are overpriced. That’s just what you would expect it to do. The problem is this idea that their marketing materials can properly be referred to as “studies.” There are millions of middle-class people who think these people are genuinely trying to report accurately what the historical data says.
Are they?
If they are, why have none of the Old School “studies” been corrected for seven years since the analytical errors in them were made publicly known?
If a car manufacturer put out a phony “study” saying that the gas mileage for its car was double what the legitimate studies said, would we not seek corrections? Would we let that marketing campaign continue?
If we protect ourselves from false claims in other areas of life endeavor, why not do the same when it comes to retirement planning? Is our interest in enjoying good and safe cars any greater than our interest in enjoying good and safe retirements?
I am suggesting that the standards of ethics that apply today in all other fields of life endeavor should apply in the realm of investing advice too. The only thing properly shocking about the idea is that there is even one person on Planet Earth who views it as being even the tiniest bit “controversial.” How the heck did we get ourselves into circumstances in which such an idea could come to be viewed as controversial?
Holy moly!
Rob
John Walter Russell says
Rob,
Think of what Professor Robert Shiller went through on P/E10. His disclaimers were needed for him to publish. Looking back, his need to make concession was ridiculous, but he lives in academia.
Have fun.
John Walter Russell
Rob says
And yet there is not one person alive on Planet Earth who does not benefit personally from us going ahead with the transition from the Passive Investing model for understanding how stock investing works to the Rational Model.
Not one.
It’s a win/win/win/win/win.
Humans!
Rob