Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
There is a 100% chance it did not need an adjustment as it is a retrospective study.
Market timing has never had a successful outcome. You are the promoter of VII, yet you are broke. Why would anyone want to pay you even one dime? You call being broke a “good plan”?
It is a retrospective study that ignores the factor that in the past has always been the most important factor in determinging safety — the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins.
I call telling the truth about stock investing a very, very good plan. The fact that it is so hard to gain access to research-based reports on how stock investing works in the Buy-and-Hold Era makes reports that are research-based all the more valuable. The more resistance I see to discussion of the past 42 years of peer-reviewed research, the more confidence I have that there’s value in exploring those 42 years of peer-reviewed research in great depth.
That’s where I’m coming from re this one in any event, Anonymous.
My best wishes, etc.
Rob
“The more resistance I see to discussion of the past 42 years of peer-reviewed research, the more confidence I have that there’s value in exploring those 42 years of peer-reviewed research in great depth.”
Your thinking is simply illogical. When people disagree with you, it should make you dig in further to see if you are actually wrong. You then take a look at outcomes to see if they confirm one position or the other. To the opposite, you should be more confident if others agree with you and your outcomes match expectations. On a separate note, your opinions do not constitute peer reviewed research. You constant need to define things in such a way also give suspect to the points you are trying to make.
I have seen thousands of good and smart people agree with me, often in the most effusive terms possible. And that groups includes some of the biggest names in the field. Yes, those expressions of agreement make me more confident in my views. All of that tracks.
Then we have you Goons. You disagree. But you don’t agree in any rational way. You don’t say that Greaney really did include a valuation adjustment in his study. In fact, Evidence has stated very clearly that he believes that Greaney did NOT include a valuation adjustment in his study. So there is a sense in which there is no dispute.
But there is friction. You don’t want people to talk about the far reaching implications of Shiller’s amazing research. So you engage in all sorts of abusive behavior to intimidate people who want to have such discussions into not having them. I want us all to have those discussions. I want us all to learn and to become more effective invesgtors and to live better lives. You want us to pretend that we don’t know any more today than we knew back in the 1960s, when Buy-and-Hold was developed. That’s the controversy. As a nation are we permitted to advance in our understanding of how stock investing works or should we remain stuck at the place we were when some people took a wild shot in the dark and concluded that market timing/price discipline might not always be required.
I love it that so many people have such a great interest in learning more about Valuation-Informed Indexing. You hate that. I don’t like it that you have been able to make use of abusiveness to keep us stuck in the understanding of the past. But whachagonnado, you know? I have a funny feeling that it wouldn’t help for me to cry about it. So I go about things in this other way instead.
I hope that makes a tiny bit of sense for you.
Rob
You just want to go on and push a narrative that supports your position. It has nothing to do with reality. The world is not going to change just to make you happy.
Okay, Anonymous.
I do wish you all good things, im any event.
Rob