I’ve posted Entry #462 to my weekly Valuation-Informed Indexing column at the Value Walk site. It’s called It Is More True to Say That Timing Always Works Than It Is to Say That Timing Never Works.
Juicy Excerpt: Investors need to be reminded frequently that short-term timing never works. However, they need to be reminded even more frequently that long-term stock market timing always works. The price that will be paid for forgetting Shiller’s powerful insight is usually going to be greater than the price that will be paid for forgetting Fama’s powerful insight.
Can you show just one example where VII has worked for anyone?
It obviously couldn’t work for anyone before anyone knew about it. Shiller only published his “revolutionary” (his word) research showing that valuations affect long-term returns in 1981. And by 1981, Buy-and-Hold had become popular. A lot of people were overtaken by cognitive dissonance and stuck with Buy-and-Hold. And there was a huge bull market that made Buy-and-Hold look really good for a time. So there is only a small percentage of the population that has tried Valuation-Informed Indexing. I have never heard of anyone who tried it and was dissatisfied. The numbers show that it has worked for those who have tried it (presuming that you adjust for valuations, as Shiller’s research shows you must). It couldn’t possibly have done any better given the criminal behavior that we have seen from the Buy-and-Holders to keep people from learning what the last 38 years of peer-reviewed research have taught us about what works.
It’s not your place to deny people the information they need to make decisions for themselves. If you prefer Buy-and-Hold, that’s obviously fine. Follow it. And you should of course feel free to tell people that you don’t think that Valuation-Informed Indexing has been sufficiently tested and that they should avoid it. That’s also fine. Large numbers of people are going to listen to that advice, which if of course also fine. But, if you play it by the laws of the United States, there will also be large numbers of people who will choose to switch to Valuation-Informed Indexing once they hear the case for it advanced in civil and reasoned discussions. And that is of course also 100 percent fine. That’s how our system works. That’s how we come to enjoy learning experiences. We all say what we believe and some of us take one path and some of us take another path and over time we compare notes and as a society we advance to better places step by step.
If we followed a policy that no new idea could ever be considered until 100 percent of the population embraced it and had success with it, we would never benefit from any new ideas. We would not be the nation that we are if that were the policy that we followed. Did the committee that awarded Shiller his Nobel prize hold it back because less than 100 percent of the population today follows Valuation-Informed Indexing? They did not. They saw that he had discovered some amazing things about how stock investing works and went ahead an awarded him for helping us all out. Well, I believe that I should make use of the amazing things that I learned as the result of Shiller’s work and that’s 100 percent my choice, not yours. And there are millions of other investors who today would like to make use of Shiller’s work and that is their choice to make, not yours.
None of us has perfect knowledge. None of us is never wrong. None of us has the right to crush those who offer viewpoints other than our own so that no one else can hear them.
Valuation-Informed Indexing has worked in a general sense for as far back as we have records of stock prices. The peer-reviewed research that I co-authored with Wade Pfau shows that beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. The findings set forth in our research are stunning. Every investor alive should know about those findings and anyone who blocks people from learning about those findings through criminal behavior is responsible for any losses suffered as a result. In the event that stocks continue to perform in the future anything at all as they have always performed in the past, those losses will be in the trillions of dollars. So that’s bad stuff.
It’s not your place to tell others what to do. It’s your place to offer your thoughts. That’s helpful. But death threats are over the line. Demands for unjustified board bannings are over the line. Thousands of acts of defamation are over the line. Threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs are over the line. If you reach a point where you believe that the only way in which you can defend your favorite investment strategy from research-based challenges to it is to engage in criminal behavior, it is time to go looking for a new favorite investment strategy. That ain’t the way, Anonymous.
I think that Shiller gave us all a great gift with his Nobel-prize-winning research. I have seen more than enough to become a devoted follower. You don’t feel the same. So be it. That doesn’t mean that you cannot be my friend (at least it doesn’t mean that from my end). But it means that I cannot today say the same things about stock investing that I would have said about it in 1980. Shiller changed the world’s understanding of how stock investing works in a fundamental way. I am part of the world and it is my job to tell people what I truly believe about this subject when I discuss it. So that is what I do.
If Shiller is right, it was the promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies that was the primary cause of both the Great Depression and of the economic crisis of 2008. Was Buy-and-Hold “working” at those times? I say “no.” You will say that there were some individual investors in those times who declared that Buy-and-Hold was working for them. But the overall effect of promotion of the strategy was catastrophic when you consider that it caused millions of failed retirements and hundreds of thousands of business collapses and millions of people to be thrown out of their jobs. I don’t call that “working.” People need to know about that side of Buy-and-Hold too. Shiller’s work changes our understanding of how stock investing works in hundreds of ways and each and every one of us needs to hear about all of them (we of course all have the right to decide how much of what we hear is legitimate or not).
My best wishes to you, my skeptical friend.
VII Advocate Rob
In short, there is no single case of a successful VII implementation and outcome.
Got it.
In short, it is my intent to remain on the right side of the felony line while wishing you the best of luck with whatever choices you make for yourself.
Without ever giving two seconds of thought to any other possibilities.
Rob
I guess you have decided to live in fantasyland with all the delusions you espouse.
I believe that Buy-and-Hold is the past and that Valuation-Informed Indexing is the future.
Please feel free to quote me everywhere on the internet.
Fantasyland Man Rob
I believe actual outcomes/results matter versus fantasy.
I believe that peer-reviewed research/Nobel prizes matter over marketing gimmicks.
Rob
I believe you don’t understand how to interpret peer review material.
Wade Pfau hold a Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton. Here is what he says:
A) Academic Researcher Wade Pfau’s Statements Showing Interest In and Confidence in Rob Bennett’s Work
1) “I do cite you and John Walter Russell in my paper as the earliest and strongest advocates of this approach [New School safe-withdrawal-rate research].
2) “Are you aware of Shiller offering asset allocation advice based on PE10? …. If you read Rob Bennett’s stuff carefully, I think he did provide an important contribution in terms of describing a way for PE10 to guide asset allocation for long-term conservative investors. I also think he was right on the issue of safe withdrawal rates.” — Posted at the Bogleheads Forum discussion board.
3) “I am also extremely grateful to Rob Bennett for motivating this topic and contributing his experience and encouragement.” — Written in Acknowledgments section of Wade’s breakthrough research paper.
4)”You deserve much of the credit as the whole idea of Valuation-Informed Indexing belongs to you.”
5) “I definitely need to cite some of your work as the founder of Valuation-Informed Indexing, as I have not found anyone else who can lay claim to that. Shiller pointed out the predictive power of PE10 but never discussed how to incorporate it into asset allocation, as far as I know.”
B) Academic Researcher Wade Pfau’s Statements on the Superiority of Valuation-Informed Indexing Over Buy-and-Hold
1) “What you see in the top part of the graph for each year is the amount of wealth accumulated after 30 years for someone following Buy-and-Hold against someone following Valuation-Informed Indexing….Valuation-Informed Indexing provides more wealth for 102 of the 110 rolling 30-year periods, while Buy-and-Hold did better in 8 of the periods.”
2) “I will take steps in my final paper to test a wide variety of assumptions about asset allocation, valuation-based decision rules, whether the period is 10, 20, 30, or 40 years, lump-sum vs. dollar-cost averaging, and so on, and to show that the results are quite robust to changes in any of these assumptions.”
3) “Any data mining that I am doing is in favor of buy-and-hold, not in favor of market timing.”
4) “The findings for “market timing” are so robust anyway, that it hardly matters how we do it.”
5) “The maximum drawdown from market timing is much less. That is how far the portfolio drops from past highs to current lows. The Buy-and-Holder once experienced a 60.96% drop, whereas the worst drop for market timing was 24.16%.”
6) “Market timing provides signficantly higher returns at a comparable level of risk.”
7) “The market timer enjoys a far less risky strategy.”
8) “On a risk-adjusted basis, market-timing strategies provide comparable returns as a 100 percent stocks Buy-and-Hold strategy but with substantially less risk. Meanwhile, market timing provides comparable risks and the same average asset allocation as a 50/50 fixed allocation strategy, but with much higher returns.”
9) “If everyone increased exposure after a market fall and vice versa, then this would dampen out the big swings in the market aggregates, and we might get shallower boom/bust cycles.”
10) ““‘I’m excited about this, as depending on what you have already done, I think I can design a study using the Shiller data to provide historical simulations of Valuation-Informed Indexing strategies against fixed Buy-and-Hold strategies and also lifecycle strategies (declining allocation to stocks as one ages). If Valuation-Informed Indexing consistently outperforms fixed and lifecycle strategies, then the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Given how well valuations help to explain withdrawal rates, I think there is a lot of potential for this topic.”
11) “Yes, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing Works!”
12) “It makes complete sense to have an equity allocation that is in some way flexible. Having a completely inelastic demand for equities is a bit bonkers; no-one acts that way with life’s other important commodities.”
13) “I wrote up the programs to test your Valuation-Informed Indexing strategies against Buy-and-Hold, and I must say that the results look very promising…. I am quite excited about the findings so far. As you say in the podcast, Valuation-Informed Indexing should beat Buy-and-Hold about 90 percent of the time, and I am getting results that support this for various strategies.”
14) “I have been toying with the idea of sending the paper to the Journal of Finance, which is the most prestigious journal in academic finance.”
15) “Now that I am accounting for risk, I am even more amazed by how well Valuation-Informed Indexing works.”
16) You shouldn’t be too excited with great wealth accumulations if they happened due to unusually high valuations, and low wealth accumulations shouldn’t be as scary if valuations are also quite low.”
17) “My idea is to show many different tables with results over the whole period for returns and risks. Valuation-Informed Indexing always provides more returns for often less risk.”
18) “No matter what I try, Valuation-Informed Indexing will still perform better in 85-95% of cases for 30 years.”
19) “I have a new figure for showing this as well. And a nice figure showing the outperformance percentages across rolling periods of lengths between 1 and 40 years. I think it is all quite persuasive.”
20) “You haven’t seen anything yet! This was just the secondary study. I’m still working on the main one!”
C) Academic Researcher Wade Pfau’s Statements of Incredulity That He Was the First Academic Researcher to Examine the Valuation-Informed Indexing Strategy
1) ” I know that there is an extensive literature about the predictability of long-term stock returns dating back to Campbell and Shiller’s work in the mid-1990s. I also know that there is an extensive literature about short-term market timing strategies…. But my question is about LONG-TERM market timing strategies. In other words, using market timing over periods of at least 10 years to obtain better returns than a Buy-and-Hold strategy. The literature seems slim.”
2) “Let me just explain a bit more why I posted about this here. Valuation-Informed Indexing has had critics for years, but until Norbert did it in 2008, nobody seemed to have provided a serious investigation of it. I just couldn’t understand why. And that bothered me.”
3) “Two papers by Fisher and Statman are still all I can find that provide evidence against long-term market timing.”
4) “I’m so confused by why Fisher and Statman didn’t consider risk in their idiot switching tests. Valuation-Informed Indexing is much less risky by pretty much any standard I consider. I must wonder… did I make a mistake somewhere? Why haven’t academics already published research about this?”
D) Academic Researcher Wade Pfau’s Statements on the Dangers of the Conventional Retirement Planning Advice
1) “The traditional approach to retirement planning (as described on pages 10 and 11 of The Bogleheads’ Guide to Retirement Planning, for example) is counterproductive and possibly damaging.”
2) “Retirees now frequently base their retirement decisions on the portfolio success rates found in research such as the Trinity study…. This is not the information that current and prospective retirees need for making their withdrawal rate decisions.”
3) “This article provides favorable evidence based on the historical record for long-term conservative investors to obtain improved retirement planning outcomes (lower savings rates, higher withdrawal rates) using valuation-based asset allocation strategies.”
4) Wade sent me a link to an article in Business Week that was published more than eight years after my post pointing out the errors in the Old School retirement studies and which he characterized as “quite sympathetic to the point you were trying to make all along”.
5) “Though I was only trying to do an Old School safe-withdrawal-rate study, all that I ended up doing was showing in a different way what you had been saying all along: the safe withdrawal rate changes with valuations.”
6) “Valuations are the driving factor. ”
7) “This is similar to your drunk driving analogy, which I agree with.” The discredited but uncorrected retirement studies find that in most circumstances a 4 percent withdrawal rate provides a huge cushion for the retiree using it. However, in each of the three cases in history when stocks reached insanely high price levels, retirements using a 4 percent withdrawal came within a whisker of failing. To say that this shows that a 4 percent withdrawal is “100 percent safe” (these words are used in the Greaney study) for a retirement beginning at a time of insanely high price levels is like saying that driving drunk is “100 percent safe” because 97 sober drivers drove their cars 20 miles without incident while 3 drunk drivers were paralyzed for life in car accidents but did not die. The fact that 4 percent only worked by a whisker in the cases in which valuations were high at the beginning of the retirement shows that a 4 percent withdrawal is high-risk at times of high valuations, not that it is “100 percent safe.”
8) ” Actually, this issue shouldn’t really even be all that controversial. It’s just common sense that the probabilities from the Trinity study shouldn’t be interpreted as forward-looking probabilities for new retirees.”
9) Naturally, I am finding that Valuation-Informed Indexing can allow you to reach a wealth target with a lower savings rate, use a higher withdrawal rate, and also have a lower “safe” savings rate, than a fixed allocation.
E) Academic Researcher Wade Pfau’s Statements Showing His Concerns that Continuing to Report Honestly on the Investing Realities in the Face of the “Hostile Environment” for Doing So Created by Buy-and-Holders Would Harm His Career
1) “I was trying to pay tribute to your accomplishments in what I knew would be a hostile environment.”
2) “Valuations and long-term investors is a somewhat controversial topic.” Wade posted these words to his blog in October 2011 as his explanation of why he was abandoning his plan of doing further research on the superiority of Valuation-Informed Indexing strategies over Buy-and-Hold strategies. He had told me in earlier days that “You ain’t see nothing yet!” when I praised his breakthrough research in this area. After his flip to the dark side, Wade removed the page containing this blog entry from his site.
3) “We have both read and met to discuss your paper. Unfortunately, we did not find the paper’s incremental contribution to the academic finance literature, assuming the analysis proved to be correct, rose to the level that we are seeking for papers in the JFR. Thus sending the paper to a reviewer would be inefficient.” These words are from an academic journal’s “desk reject” of Wade’s breakthrough research.
4) ) ““ I was discouraged when I first received the “desk reject” by the editors of the same journal that published the Fisher and Statman paper. I realized that I didn’t have a chance with one of the top journals.”
5) “I think I should stay publicly quiet for a while, as I really don’t want anyone sending messages about any topics to officials at my university.”
6) I don’t want them [the Goons] working behind the scenes to derail me.”
7) “I did warn the editor of the Journal of Financial Planning that they may receive some ‘hate mail‘ after I mentioned your name in the safe savings rate paper.”
Interpretation-Challenged Rob
You left out the part where Wade said you are wrong about John Greaney . You left out the part where he said you don’t know the difference between a mean and a median. You left out the part where he said you caused him significant harm. You left out the part where he refuses to talk to you. You left out the part where he said you made up the story about his job being threatened.
All of those parts came after you threatened to send defamatory e-mails to his employer if he continued doing honest work in this field. Extortion is a crime. It is a felony. That means prison time.
If Buy-and-Hold were a real thing, no one would feel a need to commit crimes in “defense” of it.
Law-Abiding Rob
Who, specifically, threatened Wade’s career?
Ask him.
He wrote to me and told me that he was scared of what you Goons would do to him if he continued doing honest work. He had posted our research at the Bogleheads Forum and a number of people there responded in a very positive way. And then Mel Lindauer accused him of following unethical research practices. Wade took great exception to that. He shot back at Lindauer and I was very proud of him because so few people have the courage to do that. But soon after that he wrote to me and said that he did not want you Goons following him around the internet and destroying his career. He told me that he warned the journal that published one of his papers to expect hate mail; I am sure that it embarrassed him that he had to do that. And he said that he was concerned that defamatory e-mails would be sent to his employer and that his employer would not want to go to the trouble of figuring out if the charges were legitimate but would just fire him to remove themselves from the controversy.
My personal theory (Wade did not say this) is that Wade expected Bogle to come to his defense when Lindauer attacked him and that it frightened him to see that Bogle was not going to do anything to rein in Lindauer. It’s very scary to fight you Goons alone. We live in a society that has laws and for years we have seen those laws enforced in a reasonable manner. So it comes as a shock to learn that, when it comes to the right to explore the implications of the last 38 years of peer-reviewed research in this field, there are lots of highly respected people who have no desire or intention to do anything to see the laws enforced. It shocked me when Motley Fool did not take action against Greaney after he posted his first death threats. By failing to take action they were sending a signal that death threats are okay when it come to the promotion of Get Rich Quick investment strategies; there’s money in it, so the usual rules just don’t apply. I think that is how Wade felt when he was attacked and saw that Bogle took no action. He knew that, if defamatory e-mails were sent to his employer, he would not be able to count on Bogle’s help. That’s a scary feeling. Again, the Bogle part of this is a personal theory of mine, Wade did not tell me that Bogle’s failure to act responsibly was the reason why he went to the dark side.
Wade was scared on the day he contacted me 16 months before. He was always trying to appease you Goons while always also wanting to dig deeper and do important work developing and promoting the Valuation-Informed Indexing concept. I remember one time he saw how you Goons invaded the Early Retirement Forum with out-of-control hate when my name was mentioned and he just couldn’t believe it. He had never seen anything like that before. I am sure that that left an impression on him. And on numerous occasions he would try to explain himself at the Bogleheads Forum. He would say how Valuation-Informed Indexing is completely in accord with many Buy-and-Hold principles (which is of course so) and that he did not think that Buy-and-Holders should be hostile to hearing about it (and of course most are not — you Goons comprise about 10 percent of the population of Buy-and-Holders). But of course none of that had any effect on you Goons. That scared him. He couldn’t figure out how to do work advancing the world’s knowledge of how stock investing works without losing his ability to earn an income in this field.
It took me some effort to persuade Wade to contact the Trinity study authors about the error that they made in their study. It is a scandal that that study passed through the peer-reviewed process. Shiller’s peer-reviewed work showing that valuations affect long-term returns had already been published at the time the Trinity study was presented for review. And it passed! It is impossible to explain that one. The very purpose of peer-review is to catch those kinds of errors. Wade saw the need to contact the authors of the Trinity study and he eventually did so (I do not believe that he ever received a response but it is possible that he heard something after he flipped to the dark side). Wade was very worried that calling the Trinity authors out on their error was going to hinder his career advancement. After he flipped to the dark side, he told me that it is not reasonable to expect errors in retirement studies to be corrected — that “that’s just not the way that research works.” (that’s a paraphrase but close to his actual words). That’s s chilling statement. I am 100 percent certain that close to 100 percent of the investing population would like to think that errors in retirement studies are corrected when they are discovered. But the threatened and frightened version of Wade Pfau says, no, that is not the way it is done. Of course he thought that corrections were entirely appropriate in the days before his career was threatened. The views that he expressed in public changed dramatically as a result of his personal experience of seeing what happens to people who dare to do honest work in this field.
I now know that this sort of thing goes on all the time. Rob Arnott said that he has had experiences similar to my own. He has known of researchers who wanted to prepare research relating to his investing beliefs (which are similar to my own) who were taken aside and told that publishing such research would do damage to their careers. The American people need to know this. This sort of thing needs to be written up on the front page of the New York Times. If researchers are afraid to do honest research because of what the Buy-and-Holders will do to them if they “cross” them, then the entire field is corrupt. We would be better not to have any academic researchers than to have academic researchers feeling free to publish research supporting a Get Rich Quick approach but afraid to publish research challenging that approach.
I suspect that there were e-mails from you Goons to Wade in which more threats were conveyed. But I of course did not see them and cannot say what was contained in them. I believe that there were such e-mails because the statement that Wade put forward when he flipped to the dark side contained language that was so dumb that it could not possibly have come from his own mind. He had that absurd stuff where he said that Greaney had solved the entire problem when he said that people could in the privacy of their own homes elect to go with a withdrawal rate lower than 4 percent. That of course has never been in question. The issue has always been whether people can point out on discussion boards and blogs where the Greaney retirement study is being relentlessly promoted that that study lacks a valuation adjustment. Wade obviously knows that that is the dispute. That crazy language had to have been suggested by one of you Goons. But I have never seen the e-mail in which that suggestion was made.
The peer-reviewed research that Wade and I co-authored is the most important research published in this field in 30 years. Every investor alive has a right to see it and to use it to inform his investment decisions. It is a national scandal that Wade was threatened and that millions of people have been denied access to that amazing piece of work. Neither Wade nor any other researcher should have to live in fear of a gang of internet goons. But that’s where we are today. The cover-up has been going on for 38 years now and so there are a lot of powerful and wealthy people who very, very, very much do want to see it exposed.
I believe that we are a good people. I believe that this will all come out in the days following the next price crash. We’ll see.
My best and warmest wishes to you and yours, Anonymous.
Rob
“ Ask him.”
I asked Wade, as did others. He said his job was never threatened. You are the only one making the claim. Thus, it falls upon you to back it up.
I have posted the texts of all of the e-mails that he sent me during the 16 months when we were working together here at the site. I will of course cooperate with the reporters who work on this story and with the prosecutors who bring the criminal charges. I am 100 percent certain that Wade will testify honestly when he is put under oath.
I wish you the best of luck with it, Anonymous.
Cooperative Rob
Okay. So point out the exact email in which Wade said his job was threatened and who made the threat.
There’s a list of 45 Wade Pfau comments that I have posted here on numerous occasions. The heading for Section E of that list is: “Academic Researcher Wade Pfau’s Statements Showing His Concerns that Continuing to Report Honestly on the Investing Realities in the Face of the “Hostile Environment” for Doing So Created by Buy-and-Holders Would Harm His Career.” The article from which that list is taken is on the home page of this site under the banner “The Buy-and-Hold Crisis.” The title of the article is: “Academic Researcher Silenced by Threats to Get Him Fired From His Job After Showing Dangers of Buy-and-Hold Investing Strategies.” In the article, each of the 45 statements contains a link to the e-mail from Wade Pfau in which the statement appeared.
This is the article that I sent to 30,000 academic researchers. It is my intent to send it again in the days following the next price crash. I have a funny feeling that I will obtain more responses and stronger responses at that time. But we’ll see, you know?
I say that the 17-year cover-up of the errors in the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies is the biggest act of financial fraud in the history of the United States, Bernie Madoff multiplied by 500. But lots of people know about it today and are too afraid of what will happen to them if they expose it to speak out. I believe that that will change when we all have seen the real-world effects of this massive act of financial fraud in the form of ruined lives and ruined businesses and diminished confidence in our economic and political institutions. I believe that we will all pull together in the face of a deepening of the economic crisis and elect to make the changes that we need to make to live far richer lives in the future. I sure hope that that is how it plays out!
My best wishes to you once again.
Optimistic Rob
“ I have a funny feeling that I will obtain more responses and stronger responses at that time. But we’ll see, you know?”
Those darn funny feelings just haven’t worked out all that well for you, have they?
It would be fair to say that they have not worked out well for the past 17 years. I suspected when I put forward the famous post of the morning of May 13, 2002, that Greaney would respond abusively. But I believed that the community (with Motley Fool’s help) would pull together to bring the abuse to an end within two or three days. The joke was on me re that one. You have me there, Anonymous.
Funny Feeling Failure Rob
I would call you May 2002post as “famous”. Instead, it was one of several significant catalysts in your humiliation. You really didn’t know what you were talking about and that post just kind of highlighted it. As you have admitted, you are not a numbers guy. It is hard to know much about investing if you are not a numbers person as it comes down to math/statistics.
I am not a numbers guy. I am an emotions guy.
Stock investing does NOT just come down to numbers. Emotions play a big part in it. It was Shiller’s revolutionary insight to see that.
Shiller showed us how to translate the emotional piece of the stock investing puzzle into numbers with his CAPE metric.
Include the numbers relating to investor emotion in your calculations and you get very, very different results. The safe withdrawal rate is always 4 percent if you ignore the numbers showing the emotional effect. Include all the numbers and the safe withdrawal rate is a number somewhere between 1.6 percent and 9.0 percent, depending on the emotional component to the stock price at the time the retirement begins.
Every post that followed the post of May 13, 2002, showed that I very much knew what I was talking about. Wade Pfau would not have concluded that “Yes, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing works!” had he not concluded from his 16 months of research into the issue that I very much knew what I was talking about. And you would never have risked going to prison for extortion if you were able to think of any other way of stopping these ideas from reaching the millions of investors who very much want and need to hear about them.
I think we are a good people. I think the ideas will get out. Not as soon as I wanted, for sure. Not anything close to as soon as I wanted. But I think that the ideas will get out in the days following the next price crash, when the investor psychology will change.
I wish you the best of luck with it, Anonymous. That’s all that I am able to do for you. The ideas need to get out. In an ideal world, the national debate on Shiller’s revolutionary research findings would have been launched in 1981. But we will all end up a heck of a lot better off launching it in the days following the next price crash than not launching it at all. So that’s what I am aiming for at this point in the proceedings.
Emotions Guy Rob