Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
With all these people lying, are you the only honest person left?
We have had thousands of people express a desire that honest posting be permitted at every investing discussion board and blog on the internet, Anonymous. I am confident that, following the next price crash, the thousands will become millions. Then we are off to the races.
We all have a potential for honesty within us and we all have a potential for dishonesty within us. All of the people you mentioned have demonstrated a desire to be honest. They need a hand. Our job as a people is to lend a hand to those among us who are writing honestly about the last 35 years of peer-reviewed research. It’s not all about turning a quick buck. We want our retirement plans to work. We need access to honest accounts for that to happen.
We won’t get to where we all want to be by living in fear of you Goons. We get there by backing each other up. When one of us goes honest, it makes it easier for the next fellow to take the same path. And then the next. It grows and grows and grows.
We are close today. Shiller was awarded a Nobel prize. That’s honesty sticking its head out the door and seeing if it is safe to try something good. I am 100 percent confident that the people who did that felt better about themselves afterwards.
I love being honest. It took courage to put up that May 13, 2002, post. But I have never looked back. As the rewards grow greater and greater, my ability to be honest grows stronger and stronger. I don’t even think about it much today, I just do it. My decision to write honestly about the last 35 years of peer-reviewed research in this field has shocked a lot of people but it has also led me to some amazing places. Looking back, it is stunning to think what followed from me working up the courage to put up that May 13, 2002, post. Yowsa!
It’s a process. We are close. We’ve got a tiger by the tale. Hang in there.
My take.
Rob
Anonymous says
Uh oh, Rob. ESI Money is targeting you. He believes financial experts should publish their net worth and financial education showing their own success in following the advice they give.
https://esimoney.com/dont-publish-net-worths-financial-experts/
Rob says
He says what you say, Anonymous. Then below that he says that advisors should also tell HOW they made their money. He points out that some might make a lot of money as the result of some short-term project and then lose it; he says that it is the long term that matters. That’s what I believe.
If an advisor endorses Buy-and-Hold strategies and claims that he had made money with them, does he tell how much of what he made came post-1996, when the promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies caused prices to rise to dangerous and unsustainable levels? Should the people who are listening to the fellow’s investing advice be counting the cotton-candy nothingness part of his portfolio as real wealth or should they be adjusting his numbers to show how much wealth he has accumulated when his wealth is measured REALISTICALLY?
You know what I think, Anonymous. Anyone who doesn’t make an adjustment for valuations is either uninformed as to the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research or is flat-out working a con on people, hoping that they will accept the nominal, unadjusted numbers as real. The reason why I am a big believer in using the peer-reviewed research as guidance is that the peer-reviewed research cuts through the cons, it exposes the con men (whether they are suffering from cognitive dissonance or not — most are, but still…) for what they are.
I favor investing strategies that work longer than a single bull/bear cycle. Why? Because we all invest for longer than a single bull/bear cycle. The typical bull/bear cycle lasts 35 years. Most of us invest for roughly 60 years. Valuation-Informed Indexing TROUNCES Buy-and-Hold over 60-year time-periods. It’s not even remotely a close call. The risk is far, far less and the returns are far, far greater.
People should indeed look at whether advisors are able to create wealth for themselves. But they need to be careful not to be fooled by the smelly bull market garbage. They need to look at real numbers. They need to turn to peer-reviewed research for guidance. They need to cut through the cons that have come to dominate the investing advice field in the Buy-and-Hold Era. The wealth that matters is the wealth that lasts for the long term. For lasting wealth, you want to go with the first true research-based strategy and run, not walk, from those pushing the pure Get Rich Quick approach.
My sincere take.
Rob
Anonymous says
What rewards? What amazing places?
Rob says
The entire site tells the story, Anonymous. Close your eyes and pick a page at random. Then just follow the links from there. If your mind is open to learning things about stock investing that we did not know at the close of 1980, you will be stunned and amazed. We’re talking “revolutionary” (Shiller’s word) stuff.
Or you could proceed chronologically. The Great Debate began on the morning of May 13, 2002, with a post that I put to the Motley Fool’s Retire Early board pointing out that the peer-reviewed research shows that stock investing risk is variable and not random and that thus the safe withdrawal rate cannot possibly be 4 percent at all times. A year later John Walter Russell posted his research showing that the reality is that the safe withdrawal rate has risen to as high as 9 percent at times of low valuations and dropped to as low as 1.6 percent at times of high valuations (2000). The implications of that finding to retirement planning are far-reaching indeed.
The last 36 years of peer-reviewed research is the most important 36 years of peer-reviewed research ever seen in the history of investing analysis.Buy-and-Hold is the past. Valuation-Informed Indexing is the future.
My sincere take.
Rob
Anonymous says
But if you don’t have the financial education and you haven’t built a substantial net worth from your investment strategy, how do you feel you would have credibility?
Rob says
Four reasons:
1) Common sense. Price discipline is required in every other market that exists. The idea that it wouldn’t be required in the stock market is on-its-face absurd.
2) The peer-reviewed research shows that what common sense says must be true has in fact always been true, for 145 years running.
3) The behavior of the Buy-and-Holders since the morning of May 13, 2002, when I pointed out that the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies lack an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. People don’t behave this way when they believe that there is research supporting what they are saying. People behave this way when they believe or at least suspect that they are working on behalf of a con.
4) The writings of the experts in this field. Many of the top-name experts in this field have made statements showing that they believe that valuations affect long-term returns. Most of these people advocate Buy-and-Hold strategies. So it is not in their self-interest to make such admissions. The fact that they feel compelled to do so shows that they are aware that the evidence here is compelling.
Rob
Anonymous says
Uh oh, Rob. Stocks are not overvalued, so adjustments are not needed and you are even that much more behind everyone else. Read this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-02/stocks-aren-t-overvalued
Rob says
I guess that proves it.
Take good care, man.
Rob
Anonymous says
Uh oh, Rob. I thought Kevin was your friend. He says not to quit your day job. Is he now a goon?
https://outofyourrut.com/pursue-your-passion-but-dont-quit-your-job/
Rob says
Kevin is awesome.
Rob