Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
And outcomes show that buy and hold has always worked and market timing has never worked. You should know better than others as you went broke from timing.
Are you able to identify any strategic change that follows from Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning finding that valuations affect long-term returns?
The Nobel prize makes sense if he showed that market timing is always 100 percent required for all investors. That’s a big change from the belief that was widely held in the days when the Buy-and-Hold strategy was being developed. But, if there is no strategic change that follows from Shiller’s research, I have a hard time understanding why he was awarded a Nobel prize.
Rob
feed twitter twitter facebook