Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
Peer reviewed research tells us that it is a really bad thing to be broke when we reach the age of 60. Why do you ignore the peer reviewed research?
Peer-reviewed research can be such a bore, you know?
Rob


Here is a very simple explanation of why market timing is a bad thing:
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/08/timing-the-stock-market-using-valuations/
The article is precisely on point. So I think it has value. This is the topic that we should all feel free to talk about at every site on the internet every time we feel like talking about it. I’m glad that the article exists.
I don’t agree even a tiny bit with the argument he advances. He is saying that people shouldn’t engage in valuation-based market timing because the guessing-game approach to market timing (thinking that you can know when price shifts will take place) doesn’t work. I 100 percent agree that the guessing game approach doesn’t work. I am entirely with the Buy-and-Holders re that one.
I don’t agree even a tiny bit that, if you lower your stock allocation a bit and then prices go even higher, you have somehow “missed out” on something. You “missed out” on having more irrational exuberance in your portfolio That’s a good thing! You don’t want that garbage in your portfolio! Irrational exuberance is what makes stock investing risky! We all should want to see as little of that as possible. We all should be working together as a nation of people to get the CAPE value down when it gets to the sorts of levels where it resides today. We should all want to “miss out” on bull markets and bear markets and economic collapses. We sbould all be satisfied with the 6.5 percent real gains that are provided by economi growth. Thinking that something more than that can be a good thing just gets us into a Buy-anfd-Hold mode of thinking and hurts us.
This is the issue that the Bennett/Pfau research looks at. We found that, as Wade put it, “Yes, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing works!” Practicing price discipline when buying stocks lowers risk dramatically while also increasing long-term returns dramatically. That’s investor heaven.
This is not that hard to understand. What we are dealing with today is a marketing gimmick gone haywire. The Buy-and-Holders did a wonderful thing in suggesting that investing strategies be rooted in the peer-reviewed research. That’s their greatest contribution. They had the bad fortune to be developing their strategy when all of the research was not yet available; Shiller didn’t publish his amazing research until 1981. The obvious thing to do was to incorporate his amazing research findings into their strategy as soon as they were published. Somehow that wasn’t done and we have seen a 43-year cover-up. And so now it looks really, really, really bad for people to find out about this massive act of financial fraud.
It’s not going to look any better a year from now or two years from now or three years from now. So I vote for opening every site to honest posting re the research by the close of business today, without a single exception. No one should ever feel intimidating into keeping quiet about an error in a retirement study, which is the situation that I found myself in fron May 1999 through May 2002. I mean, holy moly!
Where I’m coming from.
My best wishes.
Rob
In short, you have nothing to refute the article. You can’t show any specific data either. Wade even made it public that your timing scheme doesn’t work. Listen to the podcast.
“ I don’t agree even a tiny bit with the argument he advances”’
Who cares what you think. No one agrees with you. That is why no one is here posting in support of you. You have nothing to back you up and you are broke. It is up to you to solve your own problems. We are going to change a thing we are doing just to make you happy.
Okay, Anonymous.
My best and warmest wishes to you and yours.
Rob
I care that I express my sincere beliefs when I post on discussion boards. I sincerely believe that the Greaney retirement study lacks a valuation adjustment. So that’s what I say when the subject of safe withdrawal rates turns up in discussions held on the internet. Do you think it would have been better if I had kept it zipped re the error in the study?
Rob
You post on discussion boards, but you don’t really have a discussion. You just want people to listen to you and agree with you. Just look at how you treat the Greaney topic. It has been answered thousands of times, including the recent response by Evidence. Notice how you leave all that out. You completely ignore what everyone else has said. A discussion is when multiple opinions and heard and considered. In your world, that never happens.
I don’t care one way or the other whether people agree with me or not. If anything, I have a slight preference for them disagreeing because I learn more from challenges to my thinking than I do from endorsements of it. But I strongly oppose the abusive and criminal stuff. That stuff holds all of us back because it scares people and scared people are less likely to express their sincere thoughts.
Rob