Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
Over the last 20 years approximately how many internet sites have you opened to honest posting about the last 40 years of peer-reviewed research in this field?
Say that there are 1,000 investing sites. I don’t know the actual number. For purposes of discussion, let’s say that it is 1,000. It has been 20 years and we have not yet secured one. Going by that, it would take 20,000 years to have the entire internet opened to honest posting on the last 40 years of research.
It doesn’t work that way. It is clear that many, many site owners want to open their sites to honest posting. Even a good number of those that have banned it have also expressed a desire to permit it. Motley Fool told me that they thought it would be “ideal” if Greaney permitted honest posting. El Supremo at NoFeeBoards.com said at one time that he was thinking of making me and John Walter Russell the moderators at his site. Bill Scholar had that thing where he was going to permit honest posting at one section of his site and ban it at the other sections. People loved that idea. People were very excited when he announced that. If you Goons had not threatened to burn his entire site to the ground if he went ahead with that, out troubles would have soon been over.
People want to see that it is possible to make money with a site permitting honest posting. Having just one site that permits honest posting and that makes money will be the turning point. It has taken 20 years so far to get the first one. But the second one will not take 20 years. It will take perhaps one additional year. There will be so much amazing discussion at that site that other site owners will want to copy the concept. Someone will jump in after not too much time. Then the third one will come in even less additional time. And then we are off to the races. In not too much more additional time, every site on the internet will be permitting honest posting.
The intimidation stuff scares people. That’s why you Goons employ it. But the use of intimidation is a desperation tactics, You turn to it because you know that you have no intellectual case.It’s a Hail Mary pass sort of thing. It astounds me that it has worked so long. But I don’t think it is going to continue to work following the next price crash. I believe that after we see the ocean of human misery that always follows a time in which Buy-and-Hold becomes popular, at least one site owner will work up the courage to open his site to honest posting. Then everyone will see how much interest there is in these ideas and a second one will follow in not too much time. Then it will just grow and grow.
Finding the first one has been very hard. That’s for sure. But the potential here is just off the charts. So I think we have to soldier on. Shiller’s work, as amazing as it is, does not achieve any good purpose if people cannot talk about it. The CAPE is higher than it has ever been. Shiller’s research has not changed the psychology of stock investors. For that to happen, we need to open every site to honest posting. And to achieve that goal, we first need to open ONE large site to honest posting.
My sincere take.
Rob


Which board owners actually talk to you now? Any?
Take a look at the Greaney retirement study, Anonymous. Has it been corrected yet?
That’s the story. Correct that study and every investment site on the internet would be talking to me and helping me to promote my site. So long as I am the guy who discovered the error in the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies and the error is still being covered up, they have to act like they don’t know me. Do you think they want to see what happened to me happen to them?
If we tell the truth about safe withdrawal rates, what’s going to stop us from telling the truth about asset allocation? Or risk management? Or scores of other critically important investment-related topics? It’s all connected. If the Buy-and-Holders aren’t going to admit that they got the numbers wrong in their retirement studies, they are not going to admit they got everything else wrong either. If they admit getting the numbers wrong in their retirement studies, then the gates are open to correcting everything they have done over the past 40 years.
Either the market is efficient or valuations affect long-term returns. It can’t possible by both.
I believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research. Sue me.
Rob
“ Take a look at the Greaney retirement study, Anonymous. Has it been corrected yet?
That’s the story. Correct that study and every investment site on the internet would be talking to me and helping me to promote my site.”
Everyone else says that there was no error, so I guess that means no one is actually talking to you anymore. People grow tired of repeating things.
Okay. I say that it lacks a valuation adjustment.
My best wishes to you and yours.
Rob
“ Okay. I say that it lacks a valuation adjustment.”
It lacks a kazoo and a secret decoder ring, but doesn’t need those things as well.