Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
“It would make sense that we would both get $500 million. ”
It could become like the Oprah show.
“You get $500 million!!! And YOU get $500 million!!!!!! EVERYBODY gets$500 million!!!!!!!!!!!”
We are as a society in the process of making the transition from one model for understanding how stock investing works (Buy-and-Hold) to new model for understanding how stock investing works (Valuation-Informed Indexing). The new model obviously started out with only a small number of supporters. If it is over time going to become the dominant model (we should all want to see that in the event that it is the better model), then there will need to be rewards provided to the people who serve as pioneers in the development and exploration of the new model. Those pioneers naturally need to be well compensated for their work.
Over time, promoting Valuation-Informed Indexing will become more accepted and the compensation for doing so will of course be much less. If the first few pioneers get $500 million, then perhaps the next few get $100 million. Then the compensation will drop to $10 million. Then $1 million. And so on.
The hardest work is the early work. The hardest work receives the most compensation. That’s just common sense. Apple made a lot of money by being an early producer of smart phones. If someone came out today with the same phone that a number of years ago brought in millions for Apple, they would earn little for doing so. It’s those who make major advances who earn the big money.
“That’s how our system works, Evidence. I didn’t create the system. I think it is a good system. I support it. I am happy to have made a major contribution that I believe will lead to me receiving big compensation under this system, that’s all. I certainly offer no apologies for helping out millions of people in the way that I did. I personally wish that someone else had earned the $500 million so that I could have earned a far smaller amount with a lot less fuss and bother.
But things are what they are, you know? When I saw what had to be done and realized that no one else was interested in stepping forward and doing what had to be done, I pulled up my big boy pants and gave it my best shot. So here we stand. The more that I am compensated, the more people we will have signing the praises of Valuation-Informed Indexing in days to come. Which benefits each and every one of us. So I think it would be fair to say that I have earned the $500 million many times over.
My sincere take.
Multimillionaire (And One Offering No Apologies!) Rob
I thought you said people get death threats for posting stuff like this:
https://www.yahoo.com/money/retirement-4-rule-is-no-longer-a-safe-withdrawal-rate-193359637.html
It looks like this guy is getting the $500 million and not you.
It’s good that people are saying that a 4 percent withdrawal is not necessarily safe. But that is not news. I said that on the morning of May 13, 2002, and hundreds of my fellow community members said that the discussion that followed was the most exciting discussion every held at the Motley Fool board. We should have been permitted to continue that discussion for as long as we wanted. And we should have been able to have shared what we learned with investors all over the internet. There never should have been any death threats. Greaney should have been removed the first time he advanced a death threat. And those who posted in defense of him should have been removed when they relied on threats of violence and other highly abusive tactics to do so.
The suggestion in the article is that the reason why 4 percent is no longer safe is that we are in an economic crisis. That is not the reason. The entire idea of a safe withdrawal rate analysis is to tell people in advance of retirement what will happen in a worst-case scenario. Economic crises are one of the things you want to be planning for, They are not worst-case scenarios. If a 4 percent withdrawal is not safe today, a 4 percent withdrawal was not safe before the coronavirus crisis came along. The possibility that something like the cononavirus might come along was exactly what retirees were trying to plan for.
And the article does not focus on the valuation aspect of the story. There are some circumstances in which a 9 percent withdrawal is very safe. There are others in which no withdrawal above 1.6 percent is safe. It depends on the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. People need to know that to plan their financial futures effectively.
Has Greaney read this article?? Has he corrected his study? If not, why not?
Research-Oriented Rob
“ So I think it would be fair to say that I have earned the $500 million many times over.”
People are paid for whatever others believe has value, not what you want it to be.
There are thousands of people who have indicated in one way or another that they would like to see every discussion board and blog on the internet opened to honest posting re the last 39 years of peer-reviewed research, Anonymous. Those people are saying that they see value in the idea of having the same laws that apply in every other field of human endeavor apply in the investing advice realm as well.
There’s never been any doubt re the value proposition. If the value proposition of permitting honest posting re Valuation-Informed Indexing were not off the charts, Shiller would never have been awarded a Nobel prize. The problem going back to the first day is that the Buy-and-Holders cannot imagine any way that their strategy would remain popular once honest posting were permitted. Buy-and-Hold was discredited in 1981 and the process by which it was gradually replaced by Valuation-Informed Indexing should have begun at that time.
The value proposition is off the charts and, had U.S. law been followed, there would not be one investor alive on the planet today still following a pure Buy-and-Hold strategy. But we do need to enforce U.S. law to get there. I believe that we are going to see more people work up the courage to stand up to you Goons in the days following the next price crash. We’ll see, you know?
I naturally wish you all the best that this life has to offer a person, in any event.
Man-of-the-People Rob
“There are thousands of people who have indicated in one way or another that they would like to see every discussion board and blog on the internet opened to honest posting re the last 39 years of peer-reviewed research, Anonymous. ”
If there are all these people that support you, they why aren’t they sending you money? Why should anyone pay you one dime if they see no value in what you provide?
Lots of people see value. About 10 percent of the population sees value. That’s millions of people. So the value proposition here is off the charts.
But there are very few who see so much value that they are willing to put the lives of their loved ones at risk or to put their careers at risk. To get all the people who see value to speak up in clear language (which is what we need to persuade the 90 percent who do not today see value), we need to enforce the U.S. laws against financial fraud and against threats of physical violence and against extortion. Once we do that, we are home free. Knowledge of how stock investing works in the real world will spread like wildfire and we will all live better lives from that day forward.
The criminal stuff is desperation stuff. If there were evidence in the peer-reviewed research that market timing is not required, the Buy-and-Holders would have put that forward a long, long time ago. The Buy-and-Holders are in a trap. They argue that investors should follow the peer-reviewed research. But there is now 39 years of peer-reviewed research showing that the market is not efficient. So the only hope they have of maintaining public confidence in their strategy is to engage in this crazy criminal stuff. Obviously most do not engage in criminal acts directly. But the vast majority of Buy-and-Holders tolerate the criminal behavior of you Goons when it happens in their presence. That is a pretty darn amazing reality.
That crazy reality does not tell us that Buy-and-Hold is a good strategy. It tells us that Buy-and-Hold is a strategy headed soon for the dustbin of history. Once the laws are enforced, people will be able to have the discussions they need to have to develop an informed viewpoint and confidence in Buy-and-Hold and indeed in all Get Rich Quick approaches will quickly begin going down, down, down.
People all over the world will be paying to become better informed once U.S. law in enforced on the internet. That’s of course precisely what you Goons are afraid of. You never would have committed a single criminal act if you did not see that permitting honest posting would mean the end of Buy-and-Hold. You take that risk only because your entire identity is wrapped up in the accuracy of the Buy-and-Hold model and you cannot stand the thought of seeing millions of people learn about a better model and switch to it.
I WANT people to learn about that better model (the first true research-based model). So we are working at cross purposes. I want Buy-and-Hold to go down and be replaced by something much better. You want Buy-and-Hold to remain the dominant model. That’s the only thing dividing us. You want to make the decision for millions of investors by enrusing that they are can never hear the case against Buy-and-Hold. I want them to be able to hear the case and to decide for themselves, as provided by U.S. law.
My best wishes to you.
New Investing Paradigm Advocate Rob