“I Picked Up the Ball and Started Exploring All of The Implications of Shiller’s Research Findings in Great Depth. I Have Been Doing That for 16 Years Now. My Stuff Is Viewed As Controversial Because Few Others Have Been Doing This Work for the Past 37 Years. So People Are Shocked When They Hear Some of the Things I Say and When They See That Every Statement I Have Made Is Backed By 37 Years of Peer-Reviewed Research.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

“The question has been discussed here and elsewhere on hundreds of occasions.”

Then I guess the question is – why are you repeating the same things here “on hundreds of occasions.”?

I have made numerous claims that many people view as controversial. In ordinary circumstances, they would not be even a tiny bit controversial. Shiller changed our understanding of how stock investing works in a fundamental way with the publication of his “revolutionary” (his word) research findings of 1981. A national debate re the far-reaching implications of those findings should have been launched immediately. It didn’t happen, for various reasons. When I realized what had happened, I picked up the ball and starting exploring all of those implications in great depth. I have been doing that for 16 years now. So I have covered a lot of ground. My stuff is viewed as controversial because few others have been doing this work for the past 37 years. So people are shocked when they hear some of the things I say and when they see that every statement I have made is backed by 37 years of peer-reviewed research.

Given those circumstances, I believe that I have a responsibility to remain open to questions and challenges. I obviously do not want to make the mistake that the Buy-and-Holders made, of cutting myself off from all criticism so that I can fool myself into thinking that my ideas about stock investing are beyond dispute. So I let my critics have their say here. I don’t care how many abusive posts you Goons have put forward. I get it that you lack good intent. That was clear enough on the afternoon of May 13, 2002. The full reality is that mixed in with the abusive stuff are some good points that you have advanced and some good questions that you have asked. I repeat the same responses because you ask the same questions.

It is often the case that the basic stuff is the most important stuff. The repetitive stuff tends to be the basic stuff. You know what I am going to say. But you ask the same questions over and over again because you just cannot bear to accept the answers — you feel that your entire life depends on Buy-and-Hold being something real. So you ask generally the same questions and I offer back generally the same responses. Sometimes I find a new angle from which to approach things. Sometimes I learn more over time and am able to give a better answer than I did previously. But there is indeed a good bit of repetition. It’s those basic points that we need to be clear on. They come up over and over again. They are important. Sometimes you come at something from a new angle and it finally clicks for the person asking the question.

I write the responses for people who will be reading the site in the days following the next crash as much as I do for you Goons, Anonymous. Perhaps more so. I tend to respond to questions that I feel may be of some general interest. I don’t like to go through long explanations over and over again. That gets boring and time-consuming. But the question you asked here is one that lots of people have and so I didn’t see that there was any harm in crafting a brief response to it.

Does that help a little bit?

Rob