Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
“ The information that is missing is the pain that millions of people will experience during the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis.”
If it hasn’t happened, then it can’t be missing. Further, you have already made this claim on many websites for over 20 years, so you can’t even claim it is missing.
What you are really saying is that no one believes you.
The majority certainly doesn’t agree with me. If the majority agreed with me, we wouldn’t all be looking at a CAPE value of 29 today.
How do you think that is ever going to change? It’s not going to change by all of us who believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research keeping it zipped to appease you Goons.
Rob
If your interpretations were correct, you wouldn’t be broke. Shiller warned you, but you wouldn’t listen. Wade Pfau warned you, but you wouldn’t listen (then he stopped talking to you). Your ex-wife warned you, but you wouldn’t listen (then she divorced you). All the board owners warned you, but you wouldn’t listen (then they banned you).
At the end of the day, all we have to do is just look at our bank statements to tell us who is right. That is the ultimate scorecard.
Then there’s no need for research at all. We should all just go wherever our Get Rich Quick impulse leads us.
Do you think that’s how we should decide in our diets — just go with whatever tastes good? Should we advise alcoholics that, for so long as drinking makes them feel good, they should pay no attention to any voices telling them that they might want to rein it in a bit?
I don’t buy it. I had become friends with some of the people who posted at the old Motley Fool board. I am proud that I eventually worked up the courage to point out the lack of a valuation adjustment in the Greaney retirement study.
Rob
No one is buying what you are selling. What friends are you talking about. You don’t have any friends posting here. Instead, you give us a link to old comments that are often taken out of context. There is not a single person alive today that will say they agree with you.
If we opened every site to honest posting re the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research, in time there wouldn’t be one person alive who would disagree that market timing/price discipline is always required.
If you hadn’t seen with your own eyes how many investors are interested in learning from the peer-reviewed research, you would never have advanced a single abusive post. If you thought that Buy-and-Hold might prevail in civil and reasoned discussions, you would welcome them.
Every abusive post by a Buy-and-Holder argues in favor of Shiller’s core finding that stock investing is at times a highly emotional endeavor. That’s a lot of arguments in favor of his Nobel-prize-winning research!
Rob
You have already had your chance on every site. People have heard what you have to say. If they supported you, they would be here. Further, there are many large sites out there today that you can post on, but you refuse.
If Greaney had truly included a valuation adjustment in his retirement study, we wouldn’t have seen Evidence-Based Investing — one of the generals in Greaney’s army of Goons — saying in his famous post from late 2021 that “nobody” truly believes that the study contains a valuation adjustment, “including Greaney himself.” That’s a strongly worded statement. I think that Evidence nailed it with that one.
Rob
When did Evidence, Shiller or Pfau say they agree that Geaney needed to fix an error. Answer:Never.
Wade said that the Greaney study is “dangerous.” That nails it.
Rob
I asked him about you and Greaney. He said you are wrong and that you won’t listen to him. He gave up trying to talk sense into you and also mentioned all the harm you caused him.
After he was threatened.
Drop all the intimidation tactics and you will have people endorsing Valuaution-Informed Indexing at every site on the internet.
That’s the key to getting to all the good stuff.
The last 42 years of peer-reviewed research cannot be reconciled with the Buy-and-Hold idea that market timing is not required. If valuations affect long-term returns, it is a logical impossibility that an investor could maintain the proper risk profile without market timing when prices change dramatically.
That’s the entire story. That’s the only point of conflict. I believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research.
Rob
Wade was never threatened. He sent you an email explaining to you that YOU are harming him. You wouldn’t listen, so he had no choice but to avoid you like everyone else. Notice that he will talk to Greaney but not you.
Okay, Anonymous. He worked with me for 16 months. He told me that he thought our research was so important that he might be awarded a Nobel prize. He was effusive in his praise for Valuation-Informed Indexing, my investing concept. He concluded after the 16 months of research that: “Yes, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing works!”.He told me that he was afraid that, if he continued to praise Valuation-Informed Indexing, you would send defamatory emails to his employer and get him fired from his job. Greaney hasn’t corrected the error in his retirement study (it lacks a valuation adjustment) to this day. Gee, I wonder what might be going on here.
If Greaney’s study contained a valuation adjustment, we never would have seen a single abusive post, much less any of the criminal stuff. That’s my sincere take.
My best wishes to you and yours.
Rob
You’re broke, your wife divorced you, people won’t talk to you. Gee, I wonder what might be going on here?
Someone is living in an alternate universe and I wonder who that might be………hmmmmmmmm.
There’s only one difference between Buy-and-Hold and Valuation-Informed Indeixng, But that one difference is a doozy. The difference is whether irrational exuberance should be celebrated or attacked. These are indeed alternate universes. That’s why as a nation of people we have had a hard time making the transition. Which just makes it that much more important that I do my part,
Rob
Rob,
While you are busy with your little word games, the rest of us want a successful retirement. If there was something better, we would have no problem making a switch. What we have learned is that buy and hold works, and market timing doesn’t. We just look at outcomes. You are broke. Normal people would be trying to fix their problems. You seem to prefer sitting on your but instead of actually doing something. Sorry, but we have no interest in joining you.
I see it as being up to you whether you convert to Valuation-Informed Indexing or not. It’s a personal choice.
But I see it as being MY personal choice as to whether I am willing to say that I believe that the retirement study posted at John Greaney’s web site contains a valuation adjustment or not. I worked up the courage to post honestly on that question on the morning of May 13, 2002 (I am ashamed that it took me that long), and nothing that I have seen over the past 21 years has persuaded me to return to keeping it zipped re the matter. So I continue to say that. I sincerely believe that Evidence nailed it re that one.
I do wish you all good things (regardless of what investment strategy you elect to pursue).
My best wishes.
Rob
No one believes there is an adjustment because everyone but you says it doesn’t need it. You conveniently leave that part out every time. There is a reason why you are broke and no one talks to you. The problem is with you and not everyone else.
Okay. I definitely believe that there is no valuation adjustment in the study and I definitely believe that one is needed. Do you believe that Robert Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns is legitimate research?
I think that the problem is with human nature. We all have a Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold impulse residing within us. We all are drawn to the idea of getting something for nothing. Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research shows us how to rein in that self-destructive impulse and become able to earn higher returns at greatly diminished risk.
But talking about what works upsets those trying to hold on to their Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold impulse. We have seen thousands express a desire that honest posting be permitted. But the Buy-and-Hold Goons want no part of it. They perceive the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research as a massive threat to the Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold house of cards in which they have placed all of their hopes and dreams for the future.
Will the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis prompt some brave soul to open at least one large site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research? I think so. I certainly hope so. But there has never before been a situation precisely like this. I don’t think that anyone can say for certain.
I naturally wish you all the best that this life has to offer a person regardless of how things play out, Anonymous. Hang in there, my dear Goon friend.
Rob
I believe Shiller was correct when he said to not time the market with CAPE. I believe your ex-wife was correct when she said you should get a job. I believe Wade Pfau was correct when he told you that you have caused him a lot of harm and that there is no “step 2”. I believe the board owners were correct when they told you they had to ban you due to your bad behavior.
Forgot one more thing:
I believe that things will not change for you until you get a job and earn some money, instead of being an internet troll.
Shiller never said that, Anonymous. His entire life’s work shows that market timing always works and is always required. He releared a paper in 1996 saying that investors who failed to lower their stock allocations in response to the high valuations of the day would live to regret it within 10 years. That’s market timing! I have suggested on dozens of occasions that we invite Shiller to appear at the Bogleheads Forum and have both Buy-and-Holders and Valuation-Informed Indexers ask him about his beliefs re the how-to implications of his Nobel-prize-winning research showng that valuations affect long-term returns.
That’s an easy way to clear up much of the confusion re these matters. And it would be very easy to pull off. Shiller is an affable guy. I believe that he would agree to appear so long as we assured him that theye would be no funny stuff. We all need answers to these questions. I am not able to imagine any negative outcome that ccould follow from extending an invitation. I have been suggesting this for years now and you Goons have never taken any actions to make a Shiller appearance at Bogleheads Forum a reality. Are you willing to say why not?
Rob
Forgot one more thing:
I believe that things will not change for you until you get a job and earn some money, instead of being an internet troll.
Okay, Anonymous. I am honored to be doing this work. I think it is the most important work that anyone is doing in the United States at this time. So I intend to stick to it.
My best wishes to you.
Rob
The guy bagging groceries at the local supermarket has a more important “job” than you do. He also earns more and has a higher net worth versus you.
Yeah, yeah.
Rob
Hey Rob. How about a debate between you and Greaney that will be moderated and live on the internet. Would you agree to that? If not, why?
It would depend on where it was being held and who was the moderator.
I’m not going to do it at Greaney’s site.
I would do it at the Bogleheads Forum.
Rob
It will be live on YouTube. How about having Evidence moderate since you say he agrees with you on Greaney.
Evidence is a general in Greaney’s Goon Army. He has an extreme bias re these matters. Yes, he agrees that the Greaney retirement study lacks a valuation adjustment. That’s so obvious that in ordinary circumstances it wouldn’t count for anything. But the reality is that Greaney himself has never made that admission. So I do think it has been helpful that Evidence in the past two years (but not before that) has acknowledged that the Greaney study lacks a valuation adjustment. So I am not 100 percent opposed to having Evidence serve as a moderator.
We could so a lot better, though. John D. Craig or Microlepsis would be much better choices. They agreed with me on a lot but not on everything. There are people at the Bogleheads forum who see merit in Shiller’s research but who don’t see it as being as important as I do. Those people would be better choices. If you want this thing to go somewhere, you would make an effort to find someone more in the middle than Evidence.
What are you aiming to do with this? If it is just a YouTube version of the pointless discussions that are held here, it will serve no purpose. To agree to participate, I would need to see some sign that you intend for it to serve some constructive purpose. Are you going to promote it at places like Bogleheads Forum? If I felt that there might be a few people listening in with somewhat open minds, then I feel that there would be a good purpose served and I would participate. But if you are talking about a discussion with Greaney and Evidence (confirmed Goons) and me, then it’s just a YouTube version of the nonsense we see here almost every day and I will take a pass.
The purpose of a constructive debate is to learn. If you were open to a learning experuence, we could do that here . You are obviously not open to a learning experience. As I noted above, we are 21 years in and to this point Greaney has not even acknowledged that his study lacks a valuation adjustment. And Evidence has not made any effort to get Greaney to make that acknowledgement. So I am highly skeptical that this thing will serve any purpose. If there are going to be people with somewhat open minds listening in, though, that would make it a lot more appealing from my perspective.
Hope that helps.
Rob
So what you are saying is that Evidence doesn’t really agree with you on Greaney and you are looking for someone to moderate that agrees with you. How about Wade Pfau. What if he moderates the debate. What if he also picks all the questions that are generated by the audience?
Wade would be perfect. He doesn’t agree with me on everything but he agrees with me on some important things and he is generally fair-minded and professional. If Wade were the moderator, I would participate with great enthusiasm.
Rob
And Wade is free to ask you anything?
Of course.
Rob
He can ask you questions about why you caused him harm? Why you refused to get a job when he told you to just move on? Why you refused to get a job instead of a divorce?
He obviously can ask any questions he likes. I trust Wade to ask good questions and to respond to the answers in a fair-minded and responsible way.
Rob