Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
Shiller said to stay in the market. Shiller said not to use CAPE to time the market. You decided to ignore Shiller.
Here’s a challenge, Anonymous.
Invite Shiller to appear at the Bogleheads Forum. Assure him that there will be no funny business. No death threats. No extortion. No defamation. Just an effort from all parties to get to the bottom of what his Nobel-prize-winning research teaches us all about how stock investing works. Permit me to ask questions Permit any other Valuation-Informed Indexers who want to participate to do so. And of course permit any Buy-and-Holders who care to to do the same. It would be good to include as many experts (Bernstein, Swedroe, etc.) as possible. See what we come up with.
Here’s my prediction. I put the odds at 95 percent that Shiller will say that the safe withdrawal rate is not the same number at all possible valuation levels. His statement on that will change the history of stock investing and indeed the history of the United States. We will all be living better lives from that point forward. There will never be one person who will ever look back at that conversation as having been a negative. We all want the same things. We all need to know how stock investing works in the real world. We would all benefit from hearing clear statements from Shiller re what he truly believes re these matters.
In a world in which valuations affect long-term returns, there is precisely zero chance that the safe withdrawal rate is the same number at all valuation levels. Zero. Every investor on the planet needs to know that and every person commenting on stock investing on the internet needs to feel 100 percent free to explore the far-reaching implications of Shiller’s amazing research in his or her every comment in the subject.
Are you game?
I of course already know the answer. But I don’t think it hurts to ask. I believe that we all will be having that conversation with Shiller in the days following the next price crash, when the downside of persuading millions of investors to go with a pure Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold “strategy” will be obvious to all.
So — just to lock it down — Are you game?
When you post your b.s. response, my reply will be: “Surprise! Surprise!”
My best wishes.
Rob
Shiller is welcome at the Bogleheads forum. You are not because it requires you to post truthful statements and good behavior.
Have you ever attempted to contact Shiller?
Did he respond?
Have you ever published the response here?
Shiller is welcome at the Bogleheads forum. You are not because it requires you to post truthful statements and good behavior.
If Shiller appears at Bogleheads and says that he does not believe that it is possible to calculate the safe withdrawal rate accurately without taking valuations into consideration, will he be banned?
Rob
you ever attempted to contact Shiller?
Did he respond?
Have you ever published the response here?
One time John Walter Russell had a question about the historical data that Shiller uses for a research question he was investigating. Shiller responded to that inquiry.
Later, I wrote to Shiller asking for help with the Goon matter. He did not respond to my e-mail.
Rob
“One time John Walter Russell had a question about the historical data that Shiller uses for a research question he was investigating. Shiller responded to that inquiry.
Later, I wrote to Shiller asking for help with the Goon matter. He did not respond to my e-mail.”
Seems reasonable. Asking about a specific investing matter gets a response. Asking for help with what sounds like a like a crazy conspiracy theory gets ignored.
Why don’t you ask him if the safe withdrawal rate is the same number at all possible valuation levels?
And report back here with his response.
I don’t intent to send out any more emails of that nature until after the price crash. It is possible that I will reconsider after I have finished the book.
I really does sound like a conspiracy theory to say that honest posting on the far-reaching implications of Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research. That’s why a lot of people are hesitant to say it. But the reality is what the reality is. The normal thing would have been for there to have been a huge national debate immediately after Shiller published his research discrediting the Buy-and-Hold Model in 1981. I believe that a big part of the explanation of why we didn’t see that is that valuations were so low at the time. It seemed crazy to be worried about the effect of high CAPE values when the CAPE was at 8. Then, once the cover-up had been in place for a number of years, it seemed rude to mention that there was peer-reviewed research discrediting all of the claims that the Buy-and-Holders were making. Anyway, here we are. There are still people today saying that the safe withdrawal rate is the same number at all valuation levels. It doesn’t seem possible. But that’s the reality all the same.
Rob
“I don’t intent to send out any more emails of that nature until after the price crash. It is possible that I will reconsider after I have finished the book.”
And yet you want other people to reach out to Shiller.
It looks like you don’t want to make the effort. How long would it take to put together an email to Shiller?
It wouldn’t take long at all. But I have already done more to open every site on the internet to honest posting re the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research than anyone else on the planet. By a very large multiple. What have you done, Evidence?
Rob
There are thousands of mentions of Shiller at Bogleheads.
https://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=bogleheads.org&q=shiller
How many statements are there from him re whether it is possible to accurately calculate the safe withdrawal rate without taking valuations into consideration?
Rob
If you want Shiller to do something, then you ask him. Don’t ask others to waste their time like you do.
I would like to see every person on the planet get involved, Anonymous. Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research benefits us all. It permits us for the first time in history to invest in stocks in a way that avoids these horrible Buy-and-Hold Crises that have been causing so much misery for 150 years now. All of that — the failed retirements, the businesses going under, the people being thrown out of work, the increase in political frictions — is gone once we open every site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research and are careful to always, always, always, always practice market timing (Price discipline!) as needed.
I don’t consider it a waste of time. I view The Shiller Revolution as the biggest advance ever achieved in the history of personal finance. I am excited to be able to play a role spreading the word about it. The purpose of my book is to help the effort. I am not speaking directly to Shiller when I write the words of the book. But I am taking steps to open ever site to honest posting, which will permit Shiller’s ideas to spread to every investor. When that happens, Shiller (and everyone else!) will br speaking a lot more plainly than he does today. And that will help each and every one of us (including you Goons, even if you don’t see it). Good for us, you know?
Rob
“ I would like to see every person on the planet get involved, Anonymous”
No one is interested in getting involved with your delusions. If you want something, do it yourself. You are not a dictator.
You can only speak for yourself, Anonymous. THOUSANDS of community members have expressed an interest in learning about what the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research teach us all about how stock investing works. You’re the one acting like a dictator. I have never advanced a death threat or engaged in extortion or any of that garbage. The proper thing to do is to permit honest posting at every site and let each investor decide for himself or herself which strategy to pursue.
That’s my sincere take, in any event.
Rob
If you have THOUSANDS of supporters, go ask them to do what you want. Meanwhile, you won’t even open up YOUR website to people wanting to make what they think are “honest” posts.
I’ve asked them. I did that all the time when I was posting at the various boards.
Having thousands of people interested in learning about the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research isn’t anything close to having a majority of investors wanting to hear the case against Buy-and-Hold. The vast majority would prefer to believe that the numbers on their portfolio statement are real. That’s the entire problems. The vast majority of investors prefers not to know how stock investing works. Nothing could be more clear.
The majority of alcoholics prefer to remain alcoholics, you know? I don’t think it follows that we should not provide services helping people to overcome alcoholism. I think we should provide such services. If it makes the alcoholics uncomfortable to hear that such services exist, that’s just too darn bad. I don’t think we should force people to take advantage of such services (except where that is done as part of a court proceeding). But I think that it is a good thing for such services to be available to people. Alcoholism is a trap and people need access to ways to overcome it when they make up their minds to do so. The same is true of Buy-and-Hold (price indifferent) investing strategies.
Just because I believe that we should open every site to honest posting doesn’t mean that I believe that site owners should not place limits on what can be said at their sites. I absolutely believe that there should be limits. John Greaney wouldn’t be looking forward to a long prison sentence today if Motley Fool had enforced its site rules in a reasonable manner by banning him the first time he advanced a death threat. I sent the site administrator there an email suggesting that they do just that. I believe that every community member who viewed the guy as a friend should have done the same and I said so at the board. Site restrictions are very much needed. Bans on honest posting re the peer-reviewed research are a huge negative.
Rob
“ I’ve asked them. I did that all the time when I was posting at the various boards.”
Then I guess those thousands are not really supporters. If Shiller didn’t respond to you either, than he doesn’t support what you said. It looks like you have your answers, but don’t like it.
Try pulling back on the criminal stuff and see how people respond, Anonymous. There are good reasons why we have laws against advancing death threats and engaging in extortion and all that sort of thing. That stuff scares people. If you want people to share their sincere thoughts, you are going to have to cut back on that garbage.
I am highly confident that Shiller will be helping out in a big way in the days following the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis. Perhaps not right away. But, if the thing continues for a long time and people are getting very scared about where we are headed, I believe that he will begin speaking up in very clear terms. I wish it didn’t have to be that way. I would like to see him speak in clear terms today. I don’t think we are going to see that unless you Goons agree to bury the criminal stuff. But I do think we are going to end up in a good place. I think we are looking forward to the greatest economic surge ever seen in our nation’s history.
My best wishes to you and yours.
Rob
You keep telling us about criminal acts, yet never provide links to those acts. Why would anyone believe you without proof?
The easiest way to find out if there has been some funny business going on is to check how long it took Greaney to correct the error in his retirement study after it was pointed out to him.
Rob
“The easiest way to find out if there has been some funny business going on is to check how long it took Greaney to correct the error in his retirement study after it was pointed out to him.”
You have admitted that Geaney’s study (and Trinity and Bengen) correctly calculated the inflation adjusted withdrawal rate that survived all periods in the historical record.
That was a brave admission on your part, given how long you claimed that Greaney got the number wrong and I salute you for it.
The number that I say he got wrong is the safe withdrawal rate.
Rob