Edwin Ivanauskas, owner of the Finantage blog, wrote me an e-mail on May 11 detailing his plans for writing a series of articles re my criticisms of the Buy-and-Hold investing strategy and his reactions (both positive and negative) to those criticisms. Set forth below are his words. I will post the text of my response in Monday’s blog.
Last week we had a brief back and forth on your guest post at popeconomics.com. I promised to write a lengthy response in my own site.
I wanted to stick with just the meat of the topic (value informed investing vs. buy and hold) and give a strong overview of the two to my readers. Well, I’ve been unable to do that in such a short time frame because of the amount of research required. I’d like to run the numbers in scenarios before committing to any definite positions on the subject.
I will likely publish on the topic in multiple posts over time. For example, giving an overview of the flaws in buy and hold, discussing valuations, etc.
One part I’m having issue with is you. You have a style of argumentation that I take some issue with, as I’ve already posted in the comments of Pop Economics.
You tend to take a long time to come to an answer, and often times don’t even answer the person’s question. You also make some assertions that are not consistent with reality.
First, you tend to use a lot of straw man arguments to portray others, for example harping on how price doesn’t matter to buy and hold investors.
One of the most ridiculous is that buy and hold led to the depression and to the current crisis.
Anyway, I don’t want to go line-by-line responding to things I disagree with as that would be far from productive. But I think those types of statements really turn people off and you should reconsider them if you want to get a larger audience for your ideas.