Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
“You’ve said that 10,000 times. I heard you the first 10,000 times. I don’t see any particular need for you to say it 10,000 additional times.”
Right back atcha Rob.
Fair enough.
Rob


This has to be the funnest post. Your last 20 years has just been repeats of the same thing over and over again yet then point out when someone else has repeated something and you say you don’t see a need to have something repeated.
Instead of learning from it, you just keep on doing the same thing. This is yet another reason why you are banned.
I agree, Rob. People shouldn’t be repeating things over and over again. People like that should have their posts blocked, don’t you think? It really is rude to do that. It is like telling people that you don’t listen.
This has to be the funnest post. Your last 20 years has just been repeats of the same thing over and over again yet then point out when someone else has repeated something and you say you don’t see a need to have something repeated.
Instead of learning from it, you just keep on doing the same thing. This is yet another reason why you are banned.
It’s true that the discussions have been repetitive. That’s because there is nothing to say on the Buy-and-Hold side. If valuations affect long-term returns (they do, according to Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research), then valuations have to be taken into consideration in any decision relating to stock investing. The reason why the Buy-and-Holoders reacted with so much defensiveness when I said that Greaney got the numner wrong in his study (the study does not contain a valuiation adjustment) is that they are all on some level of consciousness aware that the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies get the numbers wrong but they very much do not want to give up the way of thinking about stock investing (Buy-and-Hold) that produces those numbers.
Valiuation-Informed Indexing is research-based. Buy-and-Hold is emotions-based. Advocates of the two models speak two different languages. The words that they put forward do not connect with people who follow the other model. I still believe that the Greaney study lacks a valuation adjustment. But you DO NOT CARE. You like thinking that the safe withdrawal rate is always the same number, that valuations do not matter. You do not want to hear about any research saying otherwise. You want ton continue to believe in the stuff that the people who developed the Buy-and-Hold strategy believes in at the time when the strategy was developed (which was of course prior to the publication of Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research).
Will there be a greater desire to get the numbers right in the days and years following the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis? Will the pain that we all witness cause more people to want to know about the first true research-based model? That’s the question on the table today. The only way to find out the answer is to wait and see. I think it might. I sure hope it does. But I don’t claim to know everything. I’m some guy who posts stuff on the internet, nothing more and nothing less. I find the Buy-and-Hold stuff scary because I believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research. That’s pretty much it.
Rob
My best wishes.
Rob
I agree, Rob. People shouldn’t be repeating things over and over again. People like that should have their posts blocked, don’t you think? It really is rude to do that. It is like telling people that you don’t listen.
I believe that we should be permitting honest posting by advocates of both models at every discussion board and blog on the internet, without a single exception. That’s how we learn together. That’s how as a nation of people we over time advance in our knowledge of this important subject.Because of the social taboo on pointing out the dangers of Buy-and-Hold, we are today stuck at the level of understanding of how stock investing that we possessed in the 1960s, before Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research was published. Shiller’s research was an advance. But we have not witnessed the benefits of the advance because we have not given ourselves permission to discuss the far-reaching how-to implications of the advance. We are 42 years behind in our understanding of how stock investing works than where we would be if we had begun discussing the far-reaching how-to implications of Shiller’s amazing research on the day it was published.
That’s where I’m coming from re this one.
Rob
This whole post/thread is about repeating things, yet then that is exactly what you do. Of course, with repeating the same things, you get the same results. You are still banned, you are still ignored, you are still broke and you are still divorced. How is that working out for you?
It’s certainly not working on a personal level. On a personal level it has been a catastrophe. Unimaginably bad.
But each time I engage in discussion of these matters, I learn something about why the human mind is drawn to Buy-and-Hold/Get Rich Quick straegies and is so hotly opposed to consideration of research-based strategies. I write about our nation’s transition from the pure Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold Model to the research-based Valuation-Informed Indexing Model. I need to know as much about how our Goon inclinations (we all have goonish inclinations within us) undermine our desire to invest effectively for the long run. So as painful as all of this is for me, it’s something that I need to endure to perform well at the journalism task that I have taken on.
I don’t like it even a tiny bit how things have been done. But I don;t get to decide that. The state of the world’s knowledge of stock investing today is what the state of the worls’s knowledge of stock investing is todahy. There’s a saying that “you’ve got to suffer to sing the blues.” Well, maybe you’ve got to expose yourseld to the wrath of the Buy-and-Hold Goon Squads if you want to develop research-based insighs on how stock investing works in the real world. I want to do that. So here I am, you know?
I don’t want anyone else ever to have to live through something like this. Which do you think has the better chance of changing the world so that nothing like this ever happens again, me pretending that I believe that the Greaney retirement study contains a valuation adjustment after all or me insisting on my right and the right of all my fellow community members to post honestly even if it upsets some Buy-and-Holders to see that their model for understanding how stock investing works has caused people to get the numbers wildly wrong in retirement studies posted at their web site? Yeah, that’s what I think too. So I soldier on.
I hope that works for you, Anonymous.
My best wishes.
Rob
“ It’s certainly not working on a personal level. On a personal level it has been a catastrophe. Unimaginably bad.”
Yet you never really learn from it. Unless YOU change, nothing for you will change. Meanwhile, the world has moved on. It has been so long, most of the investment community either doesn’t know you or forgot about you. You have gone from being the butt of the joke to virtually invisible. You do seem to realize this, however, because that is why you won’t go on other boards. You realize that people will then start to Google your name and will quickly be made a fool of once again.
Okay, Anonymous.
I do wish you all good things. And I do sincerely believe 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.
That’s where I am coming from re this matter.
Rob