A Rich Life

The Old Ideas on Saving & Investing Don't Work -- Here's What Does

“If Bogle Could Get Market Timing Wrong, As I Believe Is the Case, Then Surely Rob Bennett Could Get Marker Timing Wrong. “

by

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

You are just like that Kim Blandino guy on YouTube.  You are so sure you are right, but only making a fool of yourself.

I believe that I am right on the substantive issues. There’s the 40 years of peer-reviewed research. There’s Shiller’s Nobel prize. There are the thousands of our fellow community members who have expressed a desire that honest posting be permitted. There’s the behavior of you Goons, which lends support to Shiller’s position that investors are sometimes highly emotional (in contrast to the Buy-and-Hold belief that investors are 100 percent rational and that therefore market timing does not work because no one can be smarter than a 100 percent rational market).

All of that makes me think that I am probably right. The other side of the story is that we are all capable of self-deception. I think that Bogle was a genius. If Bogle could get market timing wrong, as I believe is the case, then surely Rob Bennett could get market timing wrong. We all see what we are able to see and miss what we are not able to see. I am one of those darned flawed humans. So it seems to me at least possible that I am missing something important and am wrong on something but am just not able to see it. So I don’t claim 100 percent certainty re the substantive issues.

The process issue (whether or not honest posting re the last 40 years of peer-reviewed research should be permitted) is different. If I am wrong re that one, then my entire life has been a waste. I have devoted my entire adult life to journalism. If permitting both sides to speak is a mistake, then all of my work efforts have been directed to no good purpose. If letting both sides speak is a mistake, then the entire U.S. democracy project is a mistake. Letting both sides speak and enjoying the progress that follows is what this country that I love is all about. So I am just not able even to entertain the possibility that letting both side speak is a mistake. That one goes too deep.

If I am right about the process question and wrong about the substantive question, I won’t be collecting the $500 million settlement payment. But I will still feel that I did right by my fellow community members and re my country. If I am wrong about the substantive question, permitting both sides to speak would ultimately lend further support to the Buy-and-Hold Model, which is what we all should want to see happen if Buy-and-Hold really is a good model. So I feel that asking that both sides be permitted to speak is 100 percent the right position in the event that I am wrong re the substantive issue.

So on that one I don’t just believe that I am correct, as I do re the substantive issue. Re the process issue, I KNOW that I am correct. It is my belief that permitting honest posting would work to the benefit of everyone if market timing really does always work and that permitting honest posting would also work to the benefit of everyone if market timing never works. That’s all the possibilities. So I believe that we should be permitting honest posting. I don’t just believe that. I KNOW that.

That’s where I am coming from in any event, Anonymous.

Rob