Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
Who is wishing the best for the other? You want to see your critics go to prison. You critics want to see you stop wasting time and to get a job so that you can actually have money for retirement instead of tensing broke.
I don’t want my critics to go to prison. I first called on Greaney to correct the error in his retirement study on the afternoon of May 13, 2002. He obviously wouldn’t be worried about going to prison today had he followed my advice. I don’t remember you joining me on that call, Anonymous.
I have said that I intend to do everything to make the prison sentences assigned to you Goons as short as possible. I’m not Superman. There are limits to my powers. Help me out, you know? Every day that the Ban on Honest Posting continues, more lives are destroyed. The members of your jury are obviously going to be looking at how many lives you have destroyed when determining the length of your prison sentence. Forget about the millions of middle-class investors who desperately need access to honest posting re the last 41 years of peer-revivewed research in this field. Just leave that to one side. How about helping me to open every site to honest posting for the 100 percent selfish motive of reducing your prison sentence a bit?
Make perfect sense?
It sure seems so to me.
My best wishes.
Rob
How much prison time will Shiller and Pfau have to serve since they won’t agree with you or help you? How much time will Greaney need to serve?
No one can say today. It’s something that we will have to work out as a society.
I believe that the mood of many people will shift when they see up close and personal the downside of the relentless promotion of a pure Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold strategy in the form of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis. I am going to argue for prison sentences on the short side of the spectrum of possibilities. I believe that the slogan from the days of the civil rights battles that one needs to keep one’s eyes on the prize is a good one. The prize here is the richer and fuller and better lives that we all will be able to enjoy once every discussion board and blog on the internet has been opened to honest posting re the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research in this field, without a single exception. Anything that detracts from achievement of that goal is a mistake, in my assessment.
So I see it as my job to pull us all together. The Buy-and-Holders and the Valuation-Informed Indexers want the same thing — to be able to invest in the most effecticve way possible. Yes, there have been criminal acts. People need to come to terms with that. We need to explain why there has been a 41-year delay in the open discussion of the far reaching implications of Shiller’s amazing research. So I am not going to find fault with people for saying that prison sentences are appropriate. I am not going to say that I believe that Grreaney’s retirement study contained a valuation adjustment all along. But I do intend to say anything I can think of that puts him in the most positive light possible. I believe that there are somet things that I can say that will be helpful. I will say those things and see where others take it.
For no, the best thing for all those who have posted in “defense” of Lindauer and Greaney is to open every site to honest posting so that the number of lives destroyed is kept to the lowest possible number. I advocates that every day and it is my intent to continue to do so.
Make sense?
Rob
Society is not making the claims of prison. You are, so it is up to you to tell all of us about the length of their prison sentences.
It is the society as a whole that adopted laws against death threats and against defamation and against extortion and against financial fraud, not me. Now, society as a whole is conflicted. We love, love. love Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold. So we have not as a society acted against the criminal stuff. We have had people speak out against it a little bit from time to time. But in general we tolerate it because we are sympathetic to the cause for which the criminal acts are being put to use (the suppression of research-based discussions which would bring an end to irrational exuberance).
What happens when we see the negative side of Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold? The millions of failed retirements, the hundreds of thousands of business failures, the millions of lost jobs, the increasing political friction. Will people become angry about the lies that are making them feel good today? I think they will.
Live by emotion, die by emotion. It is emotion that is proping up that CAPE value of 28. If the CAPE falls to 8, as it has in earlier bear markets, will the emotion turn in a different direction? I believe it will.
The reason why I favor research-based strategies is that they temper emotion. So I don’t want to see lots of the negative emotions that would lead to prison sentences. That doesn’t mean that we won’t see it. If we all played it straight, no one would go to prison. People could hear about emotion-based strategies and about research-based strategies and decide for themselves which to follow and they would have no beef if the emotion-based strategies failed. That’s not the situation that applies. People are today able to hear about Buy-and-Hold evewrywhere and about Valuation-Informed Indexing nowhere. That creates a very dangerous situation for everyone, Buy-and-Holders and Valuation-Informed Indexers alike.
I believe that we will see prison sentences. But I intend to do what I can to see them as limited as possible. That said, I am not going to commit fraud myself to achieve that goal. I am not going to say that I believe that the Greaney retirement study contained a valuation adjustment all along.
I hope that that helps a tiny bit.
Rob
“ It is the society as a whole that adopted laws against death threats and against defamation and against extortion and against financial fraud, not me. ”
And you have not provided any single piece of evidence of any of this. You can just make it up. You can’t just throw in your typical “Greaney” talking points. You have to show the ACTUAL death threat or ACTUAL fraud or whatever. You don’t do that. You also don’t file any legal cases because you know you will lose and that there are penalties for filing false allegations.
Look at the Greaney retirement study, Anonymous. It lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. Even Evidence has acknowledged this. Evidence has said that “nobody” truly believes that the Greaney retirement study contains a valuation adjustment, including Greaney himself. I wonder why.
Rob
I read Greaneostudy. It doesn’t have an adjustment since it doesn’t need one. It also doesn’t contain any threats or fraud. Perhaps you have reading comprehension issues. Perhaps it is your lack of education and experience. Regardless, your comments are just a bunch on nonsense.
Do you believe that Robert Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns is legitimate research?
Rob
You said Shiller is going to prison. He doesn’t believe in your interpretation either. I am sure he is happy that he isn’t broke like you.
Everyone in the United States should want to know whether Shiller agrees with me that it is not possible to calculate the safe withdrawal rate accurately wsithout taking the valuation levels that applies on the day the retirement begins into consideration. In ordinary circumstances, it would be easy to find out. We could invite him onto one of the many investment discussion boards and ASK HIM.
I have suggested this perhaps one dozen times. It has not happened as of today. Any idea what the hold up is?
In ordinary circumstances, Shiller would have addressed this question in his book. The subtitle of the book indicates that Shiller’s ideas about how stock investing works are “revolutionary.” That’s so. They are. They change our understanding of stock investing risk in a fundamental way. According to Shiller’s research, valuations affect long-term returns. So risk changes with changes in valuations. So the safe withdrawal rate, which is a risk assessment tool, cannot possibly be the same number at all valuation levels. People very much need to know about errors in retirement studies. So why not include mention of those errors in a book based on Shiller’s research? Isn’t that a no-brainer? How do you think it cake to be that Shiller failed to mention the error in the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies (Greaney’s study is not the only one that made this error) in his book?
And why do you think it is that no site owner has invited him to participate in a discussion of the matter at his site? The rational thing would be for investors to want to know the accurate numbers, right? The Efficient Market Theory, on which the Buy-and-Hold Model, was built, posited that all investors are 100 percent rational? So we all should be clamouring to know Shiller’s tale on this? Lots of site owners would be seeking to take advantage of the great demand for information on this question. It would be a race to see who could get Shiller to comment on the matter first. But so far, no one. It’s all so weird and strange.
And yet somehow so human at the same time.
My best wishes to you, Anonymus.
Rob
No one has a problem with Shiller. Everyone has a problem with your hocomania.
Shiller is the one who published the Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns, All that I added was to point out that, if Shiller’s research is legitimate research, Greaney’s retirement study is in error since it does not contain an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins.
Do you think it would have have been better if I had kept it zipped re the error in the study? Hundreds of our fellow community members expressed a belief that by doing so I launched the most exciting debate in the history of the Retire Early board:
http://www.passionsaving.com/investing-discussion-boards.htm
Shiller’s research doesn’t help us if we don’t use it to get the retirement studies that were developed pursuant to a pre-Shiller understanding of how stock investing works corrected. Shiller’s research permits us to calculate the safe withdrawal rate accurately for the first time in the history of investment analysis. That’s a very good thing. If we were all thinking clearly, we would all be thrilled that we have as a society achieved that advance. It’s a good thing to seek to get the numbers in retirement studies right, not “bad behavior” that justifies a board banning.
Rob
Shiller told you to stay in the market. You didn’t. You didn’t listen to him like everyone else in the investment field, and you ended up broke. You didn’t listen to your wife either, so she divorced you. Looks like you are the one with the problems.
Shiller never said any such thing. Shiller’s book is titled “irrational exuberance.” He wasn’t saying that it is a good thing. He was saying that it is a bad thing. I’ve read the book from front cover to back cover three times.
If Buy-and-Hold/Get Rich Quick were a real thing, those who point out errors in retirement studies would not suffer any problems as a result. Pointing out an error in a retirement study is a good thing. If Buy-and-Hold/Get Rich Quick were a real thing, the Buy-and-Holders would ENCOURAGE people to point out errors in their retirement studies when they are discovered.
The Goon reaction to my pointing out the error shows that Shiller was right — Stock investors are not 100 percent rational, as was ASSUMED by the people who developed Buy-and-Hold. Investors are at times of high stock prices HIGHLY irrational. The job of an investment advisor is to rein in investor irrationality, not to encourage more of it. The experts should be encouraging us all to engage in market timing to bring prices down when they get so out of control as to pose a risk to our entire economic system (and possibly even to our political system).
That’s my sincere take re this terribly important matter, Anonymous.
Rob
“ Shiller never said any such thing. ”
Yes, he did. You were given the links.
Shiller said something that could possibly be interpreted in the way that you are interpreting it in an off-hand comment in an interview. Your interpretation is at odds with his entire life’s work. So I am not going to believe in that interpretation unless I see clear evidence that it is the correct one. We should ask Shiller. That’s the easy and obvious way to clear it up. Everyone should be on board with that project.
Until I see evidence otherwise, I am going to continue to believe that Shiller believes that his Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns shows that valuations affect long-term returns. It of course follows that risk is variable and not constant and that the safe withdrawal rate changes with changes in the valuation levels. It also follows that market timing is required for investors seeking to keep their risk profile constant over time.
My best and warmest wishes to you and yours.
Rob
“ So I am not going to believe in that interpretation unless I see clear evidence that it is the correct one.”
Yes, we agree on clear evidence. I gave you links before. Now let’s see the links to your clear evidence on the death threats and fraud………….or is this like everything else in that we just have to take your word for it.
I’ve provided the links to the death threats on numerous occasions. You Goons just say that you put forward the death threats as a means of encouraging gun safety. Which makes zero sense.
The bottom line is that the error in the Greaney retirement study has not been corrected in the 20 years since I pointed it out in my famous post to the Motley Fool board on the morning of May 13, 2002. It’s not possible that something like that could happen without a massive amount of abusive posting, including death threats. If Greaney had included a valuation adjustment in his study, Evidence would not have said that “nobody” truly believes he did, including Greaney himself.
I’m with Evidence re that one. The only way in which I disagree with Evidence is that I believe that Greaney should have corrected the error within 24 hours of the moment it was brought to his attention. There were people who used that study for help in planning their retirement.
Rob
As I pointed out, you can’t link to any death threat. You can’t even show any error in Greaney’s work because you said you are not a math guy. As Evidence stated, there was no adjustment needed. It is no wonder you are broke, unemployed and divorced. How can it get any worse for you?
The thing that will make it worse is the human suffering that we will see with the arrival of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis, in the event that stocks continue to perform in the future at least somewhat as they always have in the past.
I believe that we will survive it and that we will then see the importance of opening every site to honest posting re the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research and that we will then all move on to better times. But it’s going to hurt for a time. That’s my biggest fear re this matter.
My best wishes.
Rob
In short, you don’t have any links to death threats, because they didn’t occur in the first place.
Um….
Rob
If you had the links to real death threats, you would post them repeatedly, just like you post the same comments non-stop.
Yeah, people love death threats. That would be a real crowd-pleaser.
What truly pullls people in is peer-reviewed research saying something new and important about how stock investing works. That’s why I offer non-stop comments about how we need to open every discussion board and blog to honest posting re the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research in this field, without a single exception. I think that’s the answer, Anonymous.
I know it is!
Rob
So, Rob, you are talking about prison sentences. But, what is the statute of limitations for “Posting on a finance blog and having a single crank disagree with something that was written”?
Because apparently your supposed beef with Greaney happened back in what, about 2002?
That’s about 20 years ago? So, a young fella who joined the Army on that day, fresh out of high school, could retire *today* with a government pension for life and never work again, did you know that? Yup, he’d have medical coverage, retiree benefits, etc. Likewise, if that same high school graduate had signed on with any number of civilian sheriff’s or fire departments, he’d be in the same boat. It used to be, that city government and municipalities had similar arrangements. It might take more like 24 or more years now to fully retire from them, but I think you get the idea: If someone just took the time you’ve been frittering away between the start of your self-determined ‘war’ with intercst, who was just some random guy in the internet, and who stopped replying to you nearly as soon as you started your vendetta, and today, that would have been sufficient time to have a full career, then retire with a pension and benefits.
I believe you had quit a high paying job a few years before your imaginary ‘fight’ with Greaney, in order to try to make it as a book author. You then decided to avoid going back to work, even when that idea was failing, and then had failed, miserably. And instead of a sound, flexible, diversified investment strategy you did….. well, whatever it is you did. A one time buy of some TIPS, if I recall? You were going to tear shingles off of the house, or something like that?
Anyway, you now seem determined to remain divorced, destitute, homeless, and angry, and still unwilling to do a damn thing to help yourself; instead lashing out at decades-old imaginary demons.
Rob, it’s not too late. Pick yourself up, get a little job, rebuild some self-respect, and rejoin society. Put down the poison pen, and breathe some “Freedom Air”. You wont even have to go to the Freedom Store to get it, it’s all around you. All you have to do is decide to breathe it in, instead of the fog of hatred and retribution.
Still pullin’ for ya out here, bro! Don’t let me down!
The problem is not Greaney himself. He is one internet Goon. In ordinary circumstances, there is a limit to the trouble that can be caused by one internet Goon.
These are not ordinary circumstances. The real problem is the widespread TOLERANCE of Greaney’s behavior and the behavior of those who have posted in “defense” of him. We won’t be able to move as a nation of people from Buy-and-Hold (a purely emotional approach that advises against price discipline/market timing) to Valuation-Informed Indexing (the first true research-based model for understanding how stock investing works) until we work up the courage and sense to apply the same laws (no death threats, no extortion, etc.) in the investment advice realm that apply in all other realms of human behavior.
I believe that it will happen in the days following the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis, when the conseqences of the widespread promotion of pure Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold stock investment “strategies” will be clear to all. But I am not God. I have been known to get them wrong from time to time. We will all just have to wait a bit to see how it all plays out.
We are in the process of overcoming a national addiction to a pure Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold approach to stock investing. It cannot be done with just one or two mentions of Shiller’s amazing, Nobel-prize-winning research here and there. If we are going to fight these self-destructive inclinations that we all carry within us, we are going to need to open every discussion board and blog to honest posting, WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION. I believe that, if we work it hard enough, we can all live far richer and fuller and more meaningful lives than we ever imagined possible in the Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold Era. But it is going to take a fight, as tends to be the case with developments of this consequence. Heaven knows it hasn’t come easy. And I no longer believe that we will be able to get to the other side without first living through another Buy-and-Hold Crisis and the ocean of human misery that will come with it (I once believed that we could).
I naturally wish you all the best that this life has to offer a person, Anonymous.