I’ve posted Entry #652 to my weekly Valuation-Informed Indexing column at the Value Walk site. It’s called It’s Irresponsible for Someone Who Has Doubts About Buy-and-Hold Not to Mention Those Doubts.
Juicy Excerpt: Buy-and-Hold is popular because it is popular. But it is not nearly as popular as most people think. If everyone who held doubts worked up the courage to express their doubts, Buy-and-Hold could fall very hard very quickly.


It is irresponsible for you to misrepresent the superior outcomes of buy and hold while pushing your timing scheme that has never been successful.
I don’t agree.
There is not today one academic model for understanding how stock investing works. Since 1981, there have been two. For me, it would be irresponsble to discourage market timing/price discipline since I believe that it is always absolutely required. I don’t have a problem with you saying that you do not believe that market timing works or is required since you have placed your confidence in a different model. But I have a big problem with you engaging in behavior aimed at making Valuation-Informed Indexers feel unwlecome at boards at which Buy-and-Holders are in the majority. I believe that all investors need to be exposed to the advocates of both models so that they can think things through for themselves and choose the model that they believe makes the most sense for them.
That’s where I am coming from, Anonymous.
My best wishes to you and yours.
Rob
There are strategies for investing, but there is no such thing as an academic model for investing. Representing VII as an academic model is misrepresentation and fraud.
The only bad behavior we have seen to date is from you. Stop playing the role of victim.
We disagree.
Valuation-Informed Indexing is a academic model for understanding how stock investing works rooted in the Nobel-prize-winning research of Robert Shiller. It is the alternative to the Buy-and-Hold Model, which is rooted in the Nobel-prize-winning research of Eugene Fama. Fama says that the market is efficient and therefore market timing serves no purpose and doesn’t work. Shiller says that the market is NOT efficient (because investors are at times highly emotional rather than 100 percent rational) and that valuations affect long-term returns (which means that market timing must work and is always required for investors who want to keep their risk profile constant over time. The two models start from different premises re the core question of what stock prices signify. Therefore, they end up with differents conclusions about every strategic question.
If the market were efficient, the safe withdrawal rate would be the same number at all times. It’s not. So the safe withdrawal rate is a number that varies according to the CAPE level that applies on the day the retirement begins.
Every investor needs to know which model is correct. The only way that we can as a nation of people figure that out is to open every internet site to honest posting re the past 42 years of peer-reviewed research in this field.
Rob
There is no real disagreement. The plain fact is that you are wrong. You don’t understand what academic research means.
Okay, Anonymous.
I do wish you all good things, in any event.
Rob