Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:
It is not “science” if you determine a strategy before the evidence is established. This is the basis of your flawed thing.
Secondly, your continued lying is what has destroyed your credibility. You did NOT author a paper with Wade Pfau.
Have you been unemployed for over 14 years by choice or are you unable to find a job because of your significant and obvious flaws?
Science is the testing of various hypotheses. The mistake that the Buy-and-Holders made was to ASSUME that investors are engaged in the rational pursuit of their self-interests. Everything that came after that was tested. But the premise (that investing is rational) was never tested. And in fact there is zero support for that hypothesis in the historical record. Valuation-Informed Indexers see that because they test for it. But the Buy-and-Holders have never tested for it. Why test for something that is already “known” to be true?
The premise of Valuation-Informed Indexing is that price discipline is required and of course produces good results on every occasion. A Valuation-Informed Indexer would tell you that we test for that. And indeed there are studies (such as the one that I co-authored with Wade Pfau) that show this. But I don’t doubt that there is a perspective from which to view these things that would indicate that this is our assumption rather than something that we came to believe because of tests. Why did we even test for this when the Buy-and-Holders never felt a need to? Because we believe it to be true. The belief had to be there at least in some tentative form before we would even feel the need to engage in the testing that “proved” the point to be legitimate.
Thanks for taking time out of your day to share your thoughts with us, my good friend.