I’ve posted Entry #512 to my weekly Valuation-Informed Indexing column at the Value Walk site. It’s called Market Timing Can Work Even When It Produces Lower Returns.
Juicy Excerpt: Returns are not all that matter. If higher returns are obtained at the cost of taking on excessive amounts of risk, that’s a bad result. A strategy that produces those sorts of results is a bad strategy, in my assessment.


Wrong. Returns matter. Period. You don’t risk adjust what you already earned. You said back in 2005 that you are not worried because you will outperform the market. It didn’t happen. Don’t change the story to fit your narrative.
I certainly agree that returns matter. But I also strongly believe that risk matters. If you continually take on excessive risk to earn higher returns, there will come a day when it will catch up with you. Then all the benefits of the earlier years will be gone and it will be too late to go back and do it over.
You say that I haven’t outperformed the market. But you don’t know the ending to the story yet. We have returns data going back to 1870. If you compare how investors following a Buy-and-Hold strategy did compared to how investors following a Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy did, you find that the VII investor always did far, far better IN THE LONG TERM. That’s what matters, in my view.
Buy-and-Holders are ahead today because prices are still crazy today. If irrational exuberance is a real thing (I believe it is), they will not be ahead following the next price crash. The benefits of taking on crazy levels of risk are an illusion. Those benefits never last. Or at least they never have for as far back as we have good records of stock prices.
Valuation-Informed Indexers have always outperformed Buy-and-Holders and I believe that they always will. But we will just have to wait and see where things stand after the next price crash to know for certain whether they will outperform again this time. I believe that we are going to continue to see stocks perform at least somewhat as they always have in the past. But I do not own a crystal ball. I am going by what the peer-reviewed research says. I view the peer-reviewed research as a good guide.
My best and warmest wishes to you.
Rob
“Valuation-Informed Indexers have always outperformed Buy-and-Holders and I believe that they always will.”
That is factually wrong. You have never provided any evidence of an implemented portfolio that has a demonstrated outcome. I would also be happy to compare my buy, hold and rebalance portfolio with your portfolio and we can see which one of us has done better.
Your use of the word “implemented” gives the game away, Anonymous. I am the co-author of peer-reviewed research showing that Valuation-Informed Indexing has been far superior to Buy-and-Hold for as far back as we have records. Your response is to point out that people were not able to “implement” VII until Shiller published his Nobel-prize-winning research showing the dangers of Buy-and-Hold in 1981. Obviously people cannot implement something that they have never heard of. But, had people known about VII in 1870, they would have obtained far better results by following it. And, the more people who know about it today, the more people there will be who will obtain better results on a going-forward basis. So we should be permitting honest posting at every site.
Critics of vaccines could argue that, even though every scientific test shows that vaccines work, in the days before people knew about the need for vaccines, vaccines didn’t help anybody. Surprise, surprise! For research-based investment strategies to help people, we need to spread the word about them. Then, people will be able to “implement” them and we will all live better lives from that point forward.
You say that you want to compare portfolios. But we have been doing this for 18 years and you have never once adjusted the size of your portfolio for the effect of the irrational exuberance present in the market price today. That is the entire dispute. Make an adjustment for irrational exuberance and you get very different answers. It is because Shiller taught us that that he was awarded a Nobel prize. If you fail to account for irrational exuberance, you are ignoring 39 years of peer-reviewed research. I do not do that. That’s why we have been working at cross purposes all these years.
Rob
Implemented is key. I am using the same standard you have used. You have said that the buy and hold people get scared during downturns and get out of stocks. That means that these people were not true buy and holders and did not really implement buy and hold. This the same standard as VII. Someone actually has to do it. Buy and hold has been successfully implemented in that people have held stocks and did not sell. We just saw this with Covid earlier this year.
Buy-and-Holders have not passed the test until the CAPE level drops well below fair-value levels, say down to 8. That’s when it gets hard. Anyone can hold when prices are at two times fair value. There were some people who got shaky in the early days of Covid. Most held, not all. But the CAPE value never got too low; it was always in the 20s. That’s not much of a test. The test is going to be when we drop to 8 and stay there for five years.
I KNOW that the Buy-and-Holders will sell then. How do I know? Because it wouldn’t be possible to get to 8 if most investors did not sell their stocks. A CAPE of 8 is insane. We should never see a CAPE of 8. We see it because we tell investors that there is no need to practice market timing and that causes prices to go to such crazy highs that we are sure to see crazy drops that scare people into selling enough to bring us to 8. It’s one emotional act causing another causing another. It would be better just to permit honest posting. Then investors could gain access to the information they need to invest RATIONALLY and all of the crazy emotional stuff would go away. Do away with the crazy highs and you also do away with the crazy lows.
Nobody is a true Buy-and-Holder. If Buy-and-Holders were true, we wouldn’t see these crazy ups and downs. Buy-and-Hold pushes investor emotionalism to the highest levels possible (by discouraging market timing, which is the means by which we could moderate investor emotionalism). You are not going to see Buy-and-Holders holding when we get to 8. If they did, we wouldn’t get to 8.
This suggests, by the way, that Buy-and-Holders are not as confident as they let on. Buy-and-Holders SAY that they will hold when things get tough. But, if they did, we would never see these crazy lows. Buy-and-Holders get spooked when they see prices falling because they have an inner voice that tells them that a pure Get Rich Quick approach could never really work. The Covid thing was not enough to cause too many Buy-and-Holders to buckle. Some were thinking about it. But the number never grew too high. But sooner or later there will be something that will cause a buckling. And, when that happens, look out below. Because there is nothing of substance to stabilize prices in a world where investors have been encouraged to ignore intrinsic value and just give in to every emotional whim.
My sincere take.
Rob
We have already seen this play out. You can’t just keep kicking the can down the road and keep saying to wait. Further, there has NEVER been a time in which a 4% SWR did not work over a 30 year period. We have plenty of data, but you can’t accept it. To the opposite, you have never been able to time the market yourself with VII. You are the founder and promoter of VII, but you can’t even get the timing to work.
It’s not me kicking the can down the road. It’s the market. The market is comprised of millions of investors. I cannot control them. The market will crash when those millions of investors permit it to crash.
No one has ever said that a 4 percent withdrawal did not work over any 30-year period. What I said is that people who retired on Jan.1, 2000, and who took a 4 percent withdrawal from an 80 percent stock allocation had a 70 percent chance of seeing their retirement fail. We should have been telling them that. There was no good reason to hide that information from them. Let them decide whether to take that chance or not.
I have made predictions that have been proven wrong. But, if market prices fall 70 percent from where they are today, lots of people are going to see that my message has great value. A price crash like that will cause millions of failed retirements and will cause hundreds of thousands of businesses to fail and will put millions of workers out of their jobs. No, we cannot say when irrational exuberance will disappear. But we can say with certainty that it will. And, when it disappears, we see great human suffering. Why not pull together and do everything in our power to limit irrational exuberance to the extent possible? We should devote less energy to parlor tricks (predicting when a crash will take place) and more to the stuff that matters. Stabilizing our economy by eliminating crashes matters big time.
Rob