Set forth below is the text of an e-mail that I sent on January 12, 2010, to Patrick Courrielche, a journalist at the www.BigHollywood.Breitbart.com site.
Patrick:
My name is Rob Bennett. I write the “A Rich Life” blog (http://arichlife.passionsaving.com).
I enjoyed your article entitled “Peer-to-Peer Review — How Climategate Marks the Maturing of a New Science.” I would like to interest you in another story in which a flawed approach to peer review has played a big role — the promotion of Buy-and-Hold Investing and how it caused the stock crash and the economic crisis that followed from it.
Buy-and-Hold is the dominant model for understanding how stock investing works.
It is said to be “scientific” in that it is the product of academic research based on analysis of the historical stock-return data. The reality is that the academic research has shown for 30 years that the odds of a Buy-and-Hold strategy ever working in the real world for a long-term investor are precisely zero.
Rob Arnott, who for four years served as the editor of the Financial Analysts Journal, tells a story of when he asked a group of about 200 academic researchers how many of them still believed in the Efficient Market Theory (the intellectual framework of the Buy-and-Hold Model). Only a few hands were raised. Then he asked how many were going to use the Efficient Market Theory in the research they would be doing when they got back to the office. Nearly every hand in the room went up. Everyone in the field knows that the intellectual support for Buy-and-Hold Investing has collapsed. But it is career suicide to say this out loud today. The result is that far more effective investing strategies cannot be publicly discussed and the errors of the investing “wisdom” that may be discussed has put us in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The problem is that the “experts” who have advocated Buy-and-Hold for decades are
embarrassed to have the public learn how dangerous their advice has been. I put a post to a Motley Fool discussion board in May 2002 showing that the studies that financial planners use to help us all plan our retirements contain an analytical error that causes all the numbers to be wildly off the mark. My findings have been confirmed by numerous big-name experts. But I have run into a brick wall trying to get the findings publicized. Dallas Morning News Columnist Scott Burns told me that my efforts to get the word out to middle-class investors about the accurate retirement planning numbers would prove to be “catastrophically unproductive.” Scott explained that the general media will not report on this because: “It is information most people don’t want to hear.”
I have received positive feedback from hundreds of middle-class investors and from a number of financial planners (please take a look at the “People Are Talking” section on the left-hand side of the home page of my blog to see 50 linked comments praising my work). But I have indeed run into a brick wall trying to get the matter publicized. Honest posting on this matter has been banned at numerous discussion boards and blogs. The authors of the discredited studies and calculators and books have even threatened physical violence on those who report accurately on these matters and the owners of the forums and blogs have in most cases raised no objection.
Buy-and-Hold gains its credibility from the fact that it is rooted in “science.” But a “science” that is not corrected when new research identifies flaws in the original theory is not true science. I am trying to get publicity for this matter with the hope of launching a national debate on what really works in stock investing.
Here is a link to a Google Knol that I have written explaining why Buy-and-Hold Investing can never work:
http://knol.google.com/k/rob-bennett/why-buy-and-hold-investing-can-never/1y5zzbysw7pgd/1#
Here is a link to an article explaining how the promotion of Buy-and-Hold caused the economic crisis:
http://www.passionsaving.com/cause-current-financial-crisis.html
Here is a link to an article setting forth links to 20 articles in which leading figures note that the Efficient Market Theory has been discredited by the academic research of recent decades:
http://www.passionsaving.com/buy-and-hold-investing.html
Here is a link to an article containing 101 snippets of posts put forward by middle-class investors expressing a desire that honest posting on these matter be permitted at investing discussion boards:
http://www.passionsaving.com/investing-discussion-boards.html
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can supply further details that would help you determine whether to explore this in more depth.


A community member named “CuriousInvestor” this morning offered a fine and helpful comment to the blog entry dated January 22, 2010 (“My E-Mail to New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman”). I urge you to check it out:
http://arichlife.passionsaving.com/2010/01/22/my-e-mail-to-new-york-times-columnist-paul-krugman/
I’ll put forward my response to the comment by “CuriousInvestor” below.
Rob
“in your world of no volatility, what purpose would there be for anyone to lower their stock allocation upon reaching retirement? Why would I turn down a stable 6.5% return in exchange for a bond paying 4%? That’s the height of irrationality.”
I agree that that would not make sense, Curious.
My tentative take is that, in a world in which we had eliminated stock volatility by educating ourselves as to the realities of stock investing, the returns on non-stock asset classes would need to rise to levels closer to those provided by stocks. So, for example, the return on stock might be 6 percent real and the return on certificates of deposit might be something in the neighborhood of 5 percent real. I could live with that!
“I think you make the error of confusing the small segment of investors who buy “the market” via total market index funds (approximately 15% of all shareholders) with the vastly larger segment who own (and, most often, trade) the smaller components of the market. And in this world, the market works just as you would expect it to. For every purchaser who believes that Google is a wonderful bargain at $542/share, there is another who’s happy to sell it, believing that their capital is put to better use elsewhere. And when no sellers (or buyers) at that price are available, the price adjusts up (or down), so the market clears.”
The market clears. But that does not mean that the price of any of the individual stock is a proper one.
When the entire market is valued at three times fair value (as it was in January 2000), the price of just about every stock is wildly off the mark. The problem of overvaluation does not just hurt those who buy index funds. It hurts every owner of securities.
“As to whether the price on each of the thousands of individual stocks that compose the market is “proper” at any given moment in time: how can one possibly know, without the benefit of hindsight? ”
You would have to engage in extensive research. This is what Warren Buffett and all value investors do prior to making purchases.
If you don’t want to do the research, you can just understand that, when the market as a whole is insanely overvalued, the odds are high that the price of any particular security you look at is also wildly off the mark. However, without doing the research you cannot say for sure about any one particular company. Even when the market as a whole is wildly overvalued, it is possible that individual companies could be properly valued just because the investors investing in them made mistakes in their assessments of the value proposition for that company.
“When, for instance, the S&P was selling at more than 30x earnings, there were any number of individual stocks within the index that the passage of time showed were undervalued.”
No, that’s not necessarily so. The prices of those companies may have gone up dramatically in future days. That doesn’t show that they were undervalued. It may be that that prices went up because the business prospects of those companies improved.
“Jos. A Banks, for instance, was up nearly 3500% for the 2000s. How would you presume to convince a prescient owner of this stock in 1999 to sell his stock for a price that you deem more “rational”? Precisely what would that price be? And how would you determine it?”
If I were engaging in Value Investing, I would use all the techniques that Warren Buffet and all value investors employ.
If I were engaging in Valuation-Informed Indexing, I would stick with indexes, which are what make a simple approach to value investing possible.
Rob
What is your opinion on Global Warming?
I think we should put it on the back burner.
Rob