Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
“ It’s disagreeing with 41 years of peer-reviewed research.”
No, because it is only your opinion of what 1 guy said. It is not 41 years of peer-reviewed research.
Right. It’s only my opinion that Robert Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research from 1991 showed that valuations affect long-term returns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Shiller
Rob


Your interpretation of the “research” has resulted in you going broke, getting divorced and losing your home. You told us to see how things all worked out. We waited and saw these results. Good thing no one seems to have followed your failed plan.
I obviously disagree. I believe that you personally do not agree with what I say. But I saw many good, smart people agree. And I saw thousands (most of whom did not agree) express a desire that I and others who have similar beliefs be permitted to give voice to their honest beliefs. That’s how a society moves from one view of how the world works to a new one. The people who hold the opposing beliefs engage in freindly, respectful discussions and over time they and all the people listening in develop a bettter understanding.
I believe that as a nation of people we made a terrible mistake in the 1960s (because Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research was not available to us at the time) in thinking that market timing/price discipline is not always 100 percent required and that it is an urgent piece of business that we engage in the discussions needed to move forward in our thinking re this matter.
I wish you all good things. But I do not feel physically capable of saying that the retirement study posted at John Greaney’s web site contains an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. So it is my intent to continue to say that when the topic of safe withdrawal rates turns up in discussions held on the internet.
Rob