A Rich Life

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

Valuation-Informed Indexing #667: Giving Accurate Investment Advice Is Not Enough — We Need to Come to Terms With the Buy-and-Hold Cover-Up

by

I’ve posted Entry #667 to my weekly Valuation-Informed Indexing column at the Value Walk site. It’s called Giving Accurate Investment Advice Is Not Enough — We Need to Come to Terms with the Buy-and-Hold Cover-Up.

Juicy Except: This Todd did not like. He called me on the phone and we talked the matter over. He said that he would ban me if I continued to provide background on why so many Buy-and-Hold retirement studies have not been corrected since I advanced my famous post of May 13, 2002.

Comments

  2. He’s afraid of what you Goon will do to him if he talks about the 21-year cover-up. But he sure doesn’t say that he believes that the safe withdrawal rate is the same number at all valuation levels. Why hasn’t Greaney corrected the error in his study? He was telling people at the Motley Fool board that the safe withdrawal rate is always 4 percent. There were people in that board community who used his study to plan their retirements. I was there.

    Rob

  3. He never said he was afraid and there is no evidence that he was ever threatened. Same thing goes for Wade Pfau. It is no wonder they won’t talk to you anymore.

    Your Greaney question has been answered thousands of times. You know why you are wrong, yet you ignore it.

  5. “The trouble started when I tried posting at his site, I pointed out in some of my comments that other sites continued to report the safe withdrawal rate inaccurately and described some of the abusive tactics that had been employed to keep the people who read these sites from being informed about the errors in the Buy-and-Hold studies.”

    In other words you didn’t want to discuss investing matters at Todd’s site.

    You wanted to make the discussion about you and your history at other sites.

  6. The ban on honest posting re the peer-reviewed research is an investing matter, Evidence. In two important ways.

    One. There were people at the Motley Fool board who believed that the Greaney study was legitimate. There shouldn’t be one person on the planet who doesn’t want them to be informed of the error in his study (it lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins). There were people in that board community who used the Greaney study as guidance in planning their retirement. I was there.

    Two. The publication of Shillers research launched a revolutionary advance in our understanding of how stock investing works. We should all want knowledge to advance as qucickly as possible since every advance achieved helps every laat one of us to live a better and fuller and richer and freer life. There are a lot of smart people posting at all of the sites at which honest posting re the research is now banned. There is huge leverage to be gained by opening all of those sites to honest posting by thje close of business today, if not a good bit sooner.

    That’s where I am coming from re this one, in any event.

    Rob

  7. It has been discussed thousands of times as to why you are wrong. Why should board owners be compelled to give you a format to repeat the same garbage over and over again just to make you happy?

  8. If there is even a one-in-a-hundred chance that what I have been saying for 21 years now about the Greaney retirement study — that it lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement beigns — investors should be discussing that at every site. It wasn’t only Greaney who claimed that the safe withdrawal rate is always 4 percent. Millions of retirement plans were put together with that false claim in mind. A failed retirement is a seriously bad thing, It is the primary purpose of investment advice to help people to avoid failed retirements.

    I believe that we should open every site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research. I think we should do that by the close of business today, if not a good bit sooner.

    My best wishes to you.

    Rob

  11. “ I wish you all good things, Anonymous.”

    I am fine. I have $7 million. Did you get any of that $500 million yet?

  14. Oh, sure! Be discouraging to the guy who’s been posting honestly on safe withdrawal rates for 21 years now!

    Rob

  15. The problem is that NORMAL people believe that the word “honest” means truthful and you are not truthful in your posting.

  17. I have a series of important questions to ask you Rob. Hopefully, you won’t delete them like you usually do. First question, does Robert Shiller and Wade Pfau recommend timing the market with CAPE? Yes or no?

  18. For the 16 months in which we worked together on our research, Wade certainly believed that CAPE can be used for long-term market timing. That was the entire point of the research, that is the question that we were looking at. He was a little unsure in the beginning. He was intrigued by the idea. But it was a big change from what he had been taught, So he proceeded carefully. When our research continued to show that timing ALWAYS works and that the difference it makes is very big, he could no longer resist acknowleding what the historical return data so clearly shows. That’s why he declared: “Yes, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing works!”

    All of this was before he was threatened, of course. Threats affect human behavior. They cause people to say things that they don’t really believe. That’s why we have laws against making threats to get people to say things they don’t believe. I would like to see those laws enforced in the investment advice field in the same way that they are enforced in every other field of human endeavor.

    I am highly confident that Shiller believes that CAPE can be used to engage in long-term market timing. First of, his entire life’s work shows that that is the case. Shiller showed that valuations affect long-term returns. If that’s so, then stock investing risk is a variable and not a constant. If risk changes with changes in valuation levels, then investors who want to keep their risk profile constant over time (we all should want to do this) MUST engage in long-term timing. There is no other way to pull it off. Second, we have the paper that Shiller published in 1996 urging market timing because of the dangerous CAPE value that applied at the time. So, yes, I very much believe that Shiller believes in market timing.

    The odd thing, of course, is that Shiller never states in his book in a clear and direct way that all stock investors should be engaging in market timing at all times. Why wouldn’t he say that? People buy books on investing for the how-to insights. They want to know what to DO. The most important how-to insight that follows from Shiller’s research is that long-term market timing is always 100 percent required. In ordinary circumstances, an editor would read that book and send back a note to the author that: “You MUST address the market timing question, that’s the most important advance achieved by your research and that is the advance that we need to publicize to market this book.”

    Shiller feels intiminated in much the way that Phau and many, many others feel intimidated. The proble is that the discover that market timing is always required is the biggest advance in the history of personal finance. Yes, it would make all of our lives much better than we ever imagined they could be back in the dark ages of our belief that Buy-and-Hold might be an acceptable strategy. But to let people know how stock investing works in the real world would upset ten-thousands applecarts. Every text book ever written on the subject of stock investing would need to be rewritten. Every calculator would need to be rejiggered. The Buy-and-Holders would need to accept the blame for being the primary cause of the economic crisis. Buy-and-Hold was not around as an official strategy in 1929 but the Buy-and-Holders would have to acknowledge that the same “idea” that they push today (that market timing/price discipline is not always 100 percent required) was the primary cause of the Great Depression.

    So, while permitting honest posting re the peer-reviewed research would make everyone’s life better, there are a lot of wealthy and powerful and well-connected people who would like to see discussions of this amazing advance in understanding suppressed. So lots of good people self-censor. Their consciences require them to tell people as much of the real story as they can get away with telling without losing their positions. But they say things in fuzzy ways that they hope will not get them in too much trouble. Every investor has a Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold impulse residing within him; we all want something for nothing, as irrational as it is to think that that is possible. So, without clear and direct statements that market timing/price discipline is absolutely required, lots of us are just going to ignore the research. That’s how we end up with the sort of CAPE value that applies today.

    Does that help, at least a tiny bit?

    Rob

  19. I still have more questions and hope you don’t ban them, but I just need to clarify that what you are saying is that neither Shiller nor Pfau have recommended to people that they should time the market with CAPE, correct? Just a simple yes or no will do.

  21. Your responses seem a bit conflicting. In your last response, your are now clarifying that both Shiller and Pfau have told us to time the market with CAPE. Is that correct? Yes or no?

  22. The responses are not even a tiny bit conflicting. That’s Goon talk. That’s the problem that we have been having going back to the morning of May 13, 2002.

    My best wishes to you and yours.

    Rob

  23. I still have more questions, but again, just to clarify, you are saying that both Shiller and Pfau have said that we should time the market with CAPE, correct?

  25. It is simple, Rob. It is a yes or no answer. Again, you are saying that both Shiller and Pfau have said that we should time the market with CAPE, correct? yes or no?

  26. The answer is simple enough. But it’s not a choice between “yes” and “no.” It’s a choice between rational and irrational. If we all were thinking clearly, we all would have agreed on the morning of May 13, 2002, that the retirement study posted at John Greaney’s web site lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. There never would have been any controversy.

    Honest posting re the peer-reviewed research should be permitted at every site, without a single exception. Yes or no?

    Rob

  28. I can say “yes” and it won’t mean anything to you if you haven’t elected to go rational first.

    The rational vs. irrational choice is the most important and fundamental choice.

    Permot honest posting re the research or not? Yes or no?

    Buy-and-Hold or Valuation-Informed Indexing? Answer that one correctly and everything else falls nicely into place.

    Rob

  29. When you can’t answer simple yes and no questions, you cannot have a normal conversation. All you want to do is go into your rants using the same talking points and ignore what the other person is saying or asking. I am just proving the point once again that board owners have no choice but to ban you since you will not engage in a normal conversation.

  30. It’s been quite a rant, I’ll give you that much. A 21-year rant in favor of permitting the consideration of what the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research teaches us all about how stock investing works in discussions of stock investing held on the internet.

    I wish you all good things in any event, Anonymous. Rant off.

    Rob

  31. No, as Evidence stated, you have spent the last 21 years just wanting the conversation to be about you.

  32. Are you okay with waiting to see how things play out in the days and years following the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis?

    I believe that after we all see once again what it means for millions of human beings for us to agree as a nation of people for there to be relentless promotion of the pure Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold “strategy,” without any possibility of discussion of the what the peer-reviewed research shows, we may make the shift together to Valuation-Informed Indexing. I think that will be super. I think it would be fair to say that I won’t be banned at a single site at that time.

    My best and warmest wishes to you and yours regardless of what investment strategy you elect to follow in the interim, my dear Goon friend.

    Rob

  33. We have seen in all play out, Rob. You ended up broke and divorced and you are now well over 60 years old. The game has long been over.

  35. How do you see it any different? You said a failed retirement is a bad thing. Does that not apply to you as well?

  36. As a nation of people we need to make the transition from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing, Anonymous. What are we going to do, continue telling people that the safe withdrawal rate is the same number at all times when there’s 42 years of peer-reviewed research showing that valuations affect long-term returns? Someone had to do what I did. I think it would be fair to say that I was elected.

    Do I like the abuse that the Buy-and-Hold Goon Squads have directed at me? Not one tiny bit. Do you think it would help if I cried? I don’t either. So I do this other thing instead.

    I have a funny feeling that it will all work out for the best. When we get to the other side, there won’t be one person saying “can we go back to the old way of calculating the safe withdrawal rate again?” I think that much is fair to say.

    It’s like Dylan going electric. He was met with a lot of boos. No one says today “oh, he should have just stuck with the guitar and harmonica.” Progress is a good thing. It can upset applecarts in the short term. But a healthy society needs to move forward from time to time. There’s been 20 times more good stuff than bad stuff (not that there has been zero bad stuff).

    My best wishes, etc.

    Rob

  37. You don’t actually believe the things you say. If you did, you would be actively posting on every major internet site you could find. You would have finished several books and reports to sell to those that you say believe in your market timing scheme. You would be building up a substantial internet community through a discussion forum and various social media websites. You would be filing lawsuits and police reports consistent with your claims. Yet you don’t do any of those things. Instead, you goal is to just keep things status quo, which means you keep the story the same so that you don’t have to do anything. You just don’t want to do any work and keep things to a minimum by just repeating the same few stories you have been spinning for the last 2+ decades. Any time you stray just a little bit, you find out that you get caught in lies, so you then either just delete comments or revert back to the old repeated lines. It is like the shampoo bottle instructions that say rinse and repeat.

  39. What is left to “play out” for you? What potential sources of retirement income are possible?

    Selling books/reports? You haven’t finished anything to sell and the only report you finished didn’t even provide an income that would help you avoid poverty.

    Settlement payment(s)? You have never provided evidence of any threats. You can’t show any financial losses as you never started up any viable business to demonstrate an actual loss.

    Employment? You have no recent job experience that would qualify you for any employment, other than low-skill/low pay jobs.

    Social Security? Your short job history only qualifies you for a very small benefit.

    Internet income? Your website and YouTube activity is minimal.

    Spousal support? Your wife left you and it is unlikely that you can attract any woman that has significant financial means.

    What is it that we are missing? How does you 21+ year track record of failure suddenly turn around to save you when you are already over the age of 60?

  40. Like I said up above, Anonymous — Woe is me.

    I do wish you all good things. I like to think that that might help at least a tiny bit.

    My best wishes.

    Rob

  41. You are the one that tells us that we need to watch it all play out, so you tell us. What is left to play out?

  42. We need to as a nation of people work up the courage to open every discussion board and blog to honest posting re the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research, without a single exception. That’s Wade Pfau’s Step Two. Once we complete Step Two, it’s all downhill sledding.

    Do you see?

    Rob

  43. Honest (truthful) posting would be disastrous for you. It would be the opposite of everything you have said. You still don’t have a step 2.

  45. Of course, you know all this. If you really thought things were going to “play out” for you, you would have finished several books and reports right now to “save the world” and to cash in with your market timing scheme. You would also be posting on all the popular websites. Instead, you know nothing is going to change and your goal is just to avoid work. Therefore, you just keep repeating the same garbage and refuse to fix your situation.

  46. You could say that I was on anything but a roll, Anonymous.

    My best and warmest wishes to you and yours.

    Rob

  47. And doing the same thing over and over again has led to continued failure. The future will just be the same.

  49. I am not saying anything new. Wade already told you all this when he said the following: “ What is Step 2? There isn’t one. You will still be in the same position as you’ve been in for the last 10 years. Why didn’t something happen for you after the 2008 financial crisis? You are like the guy who keeps predicting new ends for the world as each previous prediction date passes by.”

    You should have listened to Wade.

  50. The approach that Wade took after he was threatened is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone who believes that Shiller’s research is legitimate throws up his hands and says “oh, those goons are just too tough, I am going to keep quiet re what I believe,” the new ideas are never going to have much influence. Each time one of us insists on his right to post honestly, it makes it easier for all the others who want to do the same and over time Valuation-Informed Indexing becomes more and more popular.

    I don’t like having the abusive stuff directed at me. But I don’t like hurting my friends by keeping quiet either. So I am going to continue to say that I believe that the retirement stufy at Greaney’s site lacks a valuation adjustment. I am going to try to be fair, I am going to say that I believe thst a lot of people at the Motley Fool board would have taken higher withdrawal rates if Greaney hadn’t posted his study. And I am going to say that everyone wsho failed to speak up about the error in the study (including me for three years) played a role in making it popular, so it wasn’t just Greaney who caused the problem. But I am also going to continue to say that I sincerely believe that the study lacks a valuation adjustment.

    That’s what feels right to me. Step Two is opening every site to honest posting re the research. I believe that that will happen in the days and years following the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis. I believe that it will happen. I don’t say that I am certain. There’s never been a situation like this before. So I don’t think it’s possible to say for sure, But I believe that it will happen. I sure hope that it happens! And I will always wish you Goons all the best. I was friends with a number of you in the days before May 13, 2002. And I believe that I would have been friends with the others if I had gotten to know them better. I look forward to knocking back a few cold ones with a few of you after every site has been opened to honest posting. We will then be able to laugh at all the craziness.

    You say that I’m doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. You’re doing that too! You have never tried working with me to get every site opened to honest posting re Shiller’s research. So you’re doing the same thing over and over again too. You are not happy with the current state of play. You say you are. But you wouldn’t be posting here every day if you were entirely happy with the current state of play. You feel that you can’t turn back at this point. There’s nothing that I can do about that except wish you the best of luck while being true to myself and while waiting it out. So that’s what I do.

    It’s all crazy as crazy csn be. But whachagonnado?

    Humans!

    Rob

  51. Wade recently reviewed the data for a podcast and reported that since the time of Shillers work, timing with CAPE failed. He felt he needed to do that to straighten out Rob Bennett’s false allegations.

  52. It only ‘failed”in the short term. If you believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research, then all gains caused by the CAPE going above 17 are temporary, emotion-based gains. If that’s all those gains are, then investors HAD to lower their stock allocation to keep their risk profile constant as stocks became a more risky asset class to invest in. Those investors didn’t need to wait for prices to fall for timing to work. It worked on the day their risk profile was reset to where they always wanted it to be. That was the day they made the allocation change.

    It all comes down to whether you beleve that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate. The idea that market timing is not always 100 percent required came about because of a belief in the Efficient Market Theory, which Shiller discredited If the Efficient Market Theory was an accurate description of reality, overvaluation would be an impossibility and market timing would not be needed. But it’s not. The Efficient Market Theory is an idea that failed when it was tested by research. That happened 42 years ago. We should have all moved beyond the Efficient Market Theory and the “idea” that market timing/price discipline is not always 100 percent required for every investor a long, long time ago. Research-based strategies are superior.

    That’s my sincere take re this terribly important matter, in any event.

    And Wade will return to the fold once he sees that it is safe to post honestly. The days in which he was doing honest work re this stuff were the happiest days of his life. The covdr-up has lasted a lot longer than what I thought was possible. But it is not a stable situation to have one set of laws apply in every field of human endeavor other than the investment advice field and an entirely different set of laws apply in the investment advice field. I mean, come on.

    Rob

  53. 42 years is short term? Think of all the bad outcomes we would have over the last several decades to people that were stupid enough to listen to you.

  54. The Bennett/Pfau research goes back to 1870 and it shows that there has never been one time when practicing market timing/price discipline did not lower risk while also increasing return. It is not even possible for the rational human mind to imagine how failing to practice price discipline (Buy-and-Hold!) could fail to increase human misery. We need to know the true and lasting value of our stock portfolios and, with the benefit of the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research, we finally can!

    It’s not enough, thoiugh, to have most public libraries carry Shiller’s book. We need to as a nation of people give ourselves permission to DISCUSS Shileer’s Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. That’s how we learn from it. That’s how we get over our addiction to Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold and begin living fuller and richer and freer lives.

    I can live with that!

    Rob

  55. Wade Pfau’s research, as updated on a recent podcast, indicates that Rob Bennett’s timing scheme is a disaster for retirees.

  57. I guess you will have to take it up with Wade Pfau as he says you don’t have a step 2, you won’t get your $500 million and your timing scheme doesn’t work.

  58. Wade and I will be talking over all sorts of things in the days and years following the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis. That’s the entire idea of opening every site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research, to get discussions going and thereby to get learning experiences going. I’ve been recommending this since the afternoon of May 13, 2002. I think it’s the answer.

    I know it is!

    Rob

  59. You claim that your timing scheme can help make people money, yet it doesn’t. This has been the basis of why you think you should get $500 million. However, you also state that Shiller and Pfau say people should time the market. If that is the case, then why should anyone pay you anything. It would be from their work right? Shouldn’t they get paid? You didn’t come up with the idea. Also, since Pfau pointed out that your timing scheme has worked since Shiller’s work. Does that mean that you owe people money for peddling a failed scheme?

  60. Humankind did not arrive on Planet Earth with a manual on how stock investing works. We are learning as we go. The Buy-and-Holders made many amazing contributions. I 100 percent recognize them for that and am grateful to them for that. They made a mistake on market timing. They got it right re short-term timing — the evidence shows that that does not work. But they failed to distinguish short-term timing (which is just a guessing game) from long-term timing (which is price discipline. They made their mistake because they were working under a false belief that the market is efficient. Shiller discredited the Efficient Market Theory. which means that long-term market timing must work.Price discipline works in every market in which it has been employed. There has never been any reason for believing that it is not 100 percent essential in the stock market as well except for the Efficient Market Theory, which has now been discredited, freeing us all to explore what really works.

    My contribution will be to open every site to honest posting re the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research. Shiller’s research does no good if we are not all free to talk about it at every site. We all have a Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold impulse residing within us which causes us to want to believe that perhaps it will all turn out different this time, that perhaps this will be the first time in history when a pure Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold “strategy” does not cause widespread human misery. Id we are going to overcome our Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold urge, we need to be able to hear from thousands of our fellow investors helping is to tune out the noise of the Wall Street Con Men, who continue to advocate Get Rich Quick./Buy-and-Hold “strategies to this day, re years after they were discredited by the peer-reviewed research.

    Today’s CAPE value reveals how much good it does us to have Shiller’s book carried in all of the libraries but not being able to explore the far-reaching how-to implications of Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research at every site. Without the discussion, the research and the book do not help. To have the book carried in libraries but not to permit all investors to talk over the meaning of Shiller’s amazing research is like mentioning one time that gaining too much weight can lead to heart disease but banning all discussions of how to develop good eating habits and not permitting people to share recipes for healthy meals. The follow-up implementation stuff is of hugre value. Once every site has been opened to honest posting re the research, we will be getting mountains of the follow-up implementation stuff.

    I proposed that we start down that road on the morning of May 13, 2002. The work that I have done would obviously have brought in a very big multiple of $500 million ir it had not been for the absusive and in some cases criminal bahevaior of you Goons and of the site owners who encouraged your behavior by banning honest discussion of the peer-reviewed research. I have said that I would be willing to settle my legal claims for $500 million because it is such an absurdly big number that I don’t see any great need to seek more and because I would like to put the ugliness of lawsuits behind us so that we can all work together to get the word out about Shiller’s amazing research findings to every investor on the planet.

    Does all of that not make perfect sense?

    Rob

  63. Point it out. What specific work did you do? You already said that Shiller and Pfau recommended market timing. You can’t have it both ways. Just point it out. What actual work did you do?

  64. I worked up the courage to advance a post on the morning of May 13, 2002, pointing out that the retirement study posted at John Greaney’s web site lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. The fact that thousands of people responded positively to that post. some in highly effusive ways, show that the debate that I launched, which still continues to this day, would have gone internet-wide in a short amount of time had there been no abusive posting and no criminal behavior. The nation-wide debate would have changed the investing practices of milloons of people. We would as a nation of people had moved from a situation where Buy-and-Hold is the dominant stock investing strategy and we have the dark cloud of a CAPE of 30 hanging over our heads to a situation where we never again need to worry about the horrors of bull markets and bear markets and economic crises and all the human misery that the relentless promotion of Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold “strategies” have brought into our lives.

    The question of when we will open every site to honest posting re the past 42 years of peer-reviewed research is the most important public policy question before our nation today. We are all in this together. We all need to know how to invest effectively for the long-term. Knowing what works with stock investing matters.

    That’s my sincere take, in any event.

    Rob

  65. Giving your opinion on one guy’s study is not work. We all give opinions to others every day. What is worse is that your opinions have been wrong and would have been harmful to anyone that decided to take your opinions. Thankfully, no one listens to you.

    So try again, what WORK have you done?

  66. I stand by my claim that the Greaney retirement study lacks a valuation adjustment. If it weren’t a big deal to work up the courage to say that out loud, everyone in this field would have been doing it all along. The shift from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing is a shift from pute Get Rich quick to the first true research-based investment strategy.

    If you Goons didn’t see that as being a very big deal, you never would have demanded that honest posting re the research be banned. You see it as being as much of a big deal as I do. The difference is that we are working at cross purposes. I want to see us all make a huge leap forward in our understanding of how stock investing works while you Goons want to keep us stuck at the level of understanding that existed in the 1960s, when Buy-and-Hold was being developed.

    Rob

  68. Fortunately for me, I do not need to get a Goon sign-off to collect on my claims.

    In the days and years following the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis, I will make my case to the people of the United States and they will decide what is appropriate. I can live with that.

    I have of course understood from the first day that you Goons were not open to persuasion. That’s what it means to be a “Goon,” you know?

    My best wishes, etc.

    Rob

  69. What work have you done? You think people should pay you for work, yet you can even point to any work. Is this a joke?

  70. I’ll make my case to the people of the United States at the appropriate time, Anonymous.

    I of course wish you all good things in the interim.

    Rob

  71. It is easy to see the work of Bogle , Bernstein, Shiller, Pfau, etc. Why is it hard for anyone to see any work you have done? Why can’t you point any work you have done?

    It is an obvious question because it is you demanding that people pay you for work, yet you can’t point out what that work is.

  72. I pinted out the error in the Greaney retirement study. It doesn’t get any more important than that. If people in the investment advice field do not feel comfortable offering honest and accurate and research-based advice on retirement planning, then the entire field needs to be overhauled. Greaney is not the only one who had advanced the 4 percent rule. The rule was cited in thousands of newspaper articles that millions of people used for guidance on putting together their retirement plans.

    We need to get the numbers in retirement studies right. And the Greaney study lacks a valuation adjustment. We should be discussing that error and how it remaind covered up at every site on the internet It’s been 21 years since I advanced the post pointing out the error.

    This stuff matters.

    Rob

  73. You offered up an opinion on someone else’s work ( which was wrong anyways). You didn’t do any work. You could have done your own study/research, but you didn’t.

    Everyone else gives opinions every day, but we don’t consider it work. If you can find someone to pay you for your opinions, then feel free to do so. Expecting payment for no work is insane.

  75. “ The fact that thousands of people responded positively to that post. some in highly effusive ways”

    How many of these thousands have offered to pay you for your opinions? Zero. There is only value when someone says they will pay you money for what you are offering. Otherwise, it is all just a fantasy.

  76. I have zero concern about how much money I will get paid once every site has been opened to honest posting re the research. I have seen the reactions of investors to hearing about the realities in the days before bans on honest posting were imposed. Those reactions tell the tale.

    The thing that I am worried about is the damage that will be done to millions of live with the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis. In the event that the stock market continues to perform in the future anything at all as it has always performed in the past, we may be seeing not only great economic damage but even an increase in political frictions, I hope and believe that we will make it safely to the other side. But I can’t say that I don’t feel any concerns re that aspect of the story.

    Rob

  77. Look at all your comments. You are clearly worried. In fact, you are in panic mode. Your cover stories have all fallen apart. Your broke. Your wife left you.