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 use history to support YOUR opinion on the market crash. For YOUR timing scheme to work, you need the big crash. You say that history has always worked for your scheme (even though you say that the market is currently not following history). So you want to pick and choose what fits history and when to ignore it so that it all fits your narrative. Clear hypocrisy.
I spent some time last night transforming the most recent comments that merit it into future blog entries. I woke up this morning with a new chapter title for the section on “The Theory Behind Valuation-Informed Indexing” in my head. The chapter title is: “The Buy-and-Holders Find Shiller’s Research Findings So Compelling That They Cannot Ignore Them Unless Discussion of Them Is Banned.”
That’s a big part of the story here. You Goons used the word “annoying” in some recent comments. I am always talking about Shiller’s research findings and you find that annoying, so you must insist that I be banned. It would make sense that you would find research that cuts against your personal beliefs a little bit annoying. But the normal thing would be just to ignore the discussions you don’t enjoy. You do your thing and let others who want to participate in those sorts of discussions do theirs. You can’t do that. Never once have you tried. Those discussions drive you absolutely bonkers. They need to be banned for you to be able to face the new day.
Shiller’s reseatch findings are common sense. OF COURSE valuations affect long-term returns. How could it be any other way? Valuation-based market timing is price discipline. Price discipline is absolutely essential in every market that has ever existed. What possible reason could there be for thinking it might be different in the stock market?
It’s not different. And it drives you bonkers to be reminded of that. All of your energies are devoted to tuning out that simple and essential and obvious reality. So, if some fellow comes along and gives voice to it every day, he needs to be removed. That’s why these discussions have been so strange. I like research. I want to share with people what it says. And you can’t freakin’ stand it. Research is the enemy. Research undermines Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold and the Get Rich Quick fantasies about the value of your stock portfolio that are encouraged by the numbers that appear on your portfolio statement and that make you feel happy and satisfied and safe in a deep way.
Reality is the enemy to a Get Rich Quicker/Buy-and-Holder and research helps us to see the realities. Shiller’s research is highly, highly, highly “annoying,” in your word. I am annoying because I talk about Shiller’s research. The normal thing would be to ignore me and to permit others to engage in whatever discussions with me that they want to engage in. But the entire thought that valuations might affect long-term returns is just too fraught for you to even consider such a thing. The idea that valuations might affect long-term returns is the scariest thought in the world to you. You want to ignore it and I want to bring it to everyone’s attention. We are working at cross purposes.
Rob
You can have all the conversations you want right here on your own board. This is your private property and you can do as you wish. You can also ban posts and you do so on a regular basis. What you cannot do is dictate to other people as to what they do with their website. They have every right to ban you and some have done so (rightfully so) due to you behavior (lying, refusing to answer questions, name calling, etc.).
You just want to play the part of a victim and people are not buying it. How do we know this? Because you avoid posting on the largest forums on the internet where people can then push back. Notice how you stopped posting on Twitter (now X). You immediately stopped when comments were made that were not favorable for you. You refuse to go on other sites, like Reddit.
Sorry, Rob. The world does not have to do what you want or say what you want them to say.
I believe that we need to open every site to honest posting re the last 43 years of peer-reviewed research in this field, without a single exception. I don’t see that as being even a tiny bit optional. I view it as 100 percent imperative.
That’s where I am coming from re this terribly important matter, Anonymous.
My best and warmest wishes to you and yours.
Rob
That is exactly why you are banned. You don’t post honestly. That is where everyone else is coming from on this terribly important matter.
Okay.
Rob