Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
When do expect that things will finally work out for you (timeframe)?
I don’t know the answer.
I know that I would not feel good about myself if I said that I believe that the Greaney retirement study contains a valuation adjustment. So I don’t do that.
I believe that we are fundamentally a good people. And I believe that we have made enormous progress in our effort to discover the realities of stock investing. 44 years ago, we did not have Shiller’s amazing research findings. 25 years ago we did not have Shiller’s best-selling book. 12 years ago Shiller had not been awarded a Nobel prize. We are closer than ever. That’s all that I can say about it.
Rob
Have haven’t discovered anything. You have been too busy trying to spin a story in an attempt to gain fame on the internet that ended up blowing up in your face. Early on, you positioned yourself as some kind of leader of the online financial community, when, in fact, you were simply the butt of many jokes. You can try and blame others, but you brought it all on yourself.
Either the Greaney retirement study contains a valuation adjustment or it doesn’t.
I sincerely believe that it doesn’t.
Rob
…..or it doesn’t need it. You keep leaving that part out. Are you familiar with research? Do you understand what a retrospective study is? Doesn’t look like it.
If you want to say that the Trinity study is a retrospective study of what withdrawal rate survived in the past. I am fine with that. If there are some people who want to use the withdrawal rates that always survived in the past as their personal withdrawal rate, I think that’s their choice. But a rate that happened to survive in the past is not a safe withdrawal rates. To say that is nutso. Greaney said that 4 percent is always safe. That’s not even close to being so.
To do a retrospective study of what withdrawal rate was safe in the past, you would need to look at safety. Since the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins is the most important factor affecting safety, you would need to consider valuations in your analysis. Greaney didn’t do that. He did a retrospective analysis of the wrong thing. He looked at survival and then claimed that he had identified what was safe.
That’s fraud. If you want to say that he didn’t know that he made a mistake, I could be persuaded of that. But not after the mistake was pointed out to him. His response after having the mistake pointed out to him was to engage in abusive and in some cases criminal behavior. I mean, come on.
Not this boy, you know? There’s no valuation adjustment in the study. I am sure.
Rob
Do you have any degree in the investment field? Do you have any degree with respect to research or statistical analysis? Do you have a track record of investing success?
The answer to all those questions are “no”. Any attempt from you to tell people what they should do in retirement investment is fraud. You should be the one fixing YOUR problems instead of telling everyone else what you think they should do.
I do not have a relevant degree. That’s a plus. Shiller’s research discredits the dominant academic model for understanding stock investing (Buy-and-Hold). The people who hold degrees make money due to the public’s perception of their expertise in that model. If Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate, then the last thing in the world that you want to see in an investment adviser is expertise in Buy-and-Hold. That’s expertise in what doesn’t work. I lack that sort of “expertise.” Good for me.
If Buy-and-Hold were a real thing, Buy-and-Holders would welcome new research findings and challenges from people who don’t hold degrees. The reactions that we have seen from Buy-and-Holders show us that the “strategy” is just a marketing gimmick, a money- making thing. Buy-and-Holders tell people that irrational exuberance gains are just as good as real gains, making effective financial planning impossible. Boo, baby. Not this boy, you know?
Rob
So you think it is a good thing to not have a degree. Okay, that means you have to throw out anything from Shiller and Pfau if that is the way you want to position it.
I guess we should avoid medical advice from people that have degrees as well, right?
Shiller and Pfau showed a lot of courage in doing honest work. We should encourage that, not threaten the people who do it.
There was a time when medical experts encouraged the use of leeches. Yes, we needed non-“experts” to encourage people to consider new approaches.
There’s no such thing as an expertise that remains forever. It was one thing to believe in Buy-and-Hold in 1980. It’s something very different to believe in it 44 years after Shiller published his Nobel-prize-winning research. What kind of expert can someone be who is 44 years behind in his reading of the peer-reviewed research? I mean, come on.
A true expert would acknowledge that the Greaney retirement study lacks a valuation adjustment. The very fact that I had to say it shows that a lot of funny business has been going on during the Buy-and-Hold Era.
It’s not just about turning a quick buck. Fraudulent investment advice hurts people.
Rob
Get a clue. No one believes anything you say. You have the worst track record of anyone on the boards and a long reputation of making nonstop lies.
Lots of people loved hearing what I had to say and told me so. So I know that what you are saying here is not right.
I wish you well. But I am going to continue to tell people that I do not believe that the Greaney retirement study contains a valuation adjustment.
I naturally wish you all the best that this life has to offer a person, in any event.
Rob
I people love hearing what you say, they would be commenting on this board.
If you drop the abusive stuff and the criminal stuff, I will be able to get the percentage of investors following Valuation-Informed Indexing strategies up from 10 percent to 20 percent within six months.
Rob
Disagreeing with you is not abusive or criminal
I pointed out the error in the Greaney retirement study (it lacks a valuation adjustment) on May 13, 2002. It has not been corrected to this day. 23 years.
If there had been claims that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns is not legitimate research, that would be fine. People can listen to both sides and decide for themselves what to do with their retirement money. We haven’t seen that. In 23 years, there has not been one post arguing that Shiller got something wrong. What we have seen are death threats and demands for unjustified board bannings and acts of defamation and extortion. Not kosher.
I don’t believe that Buy-and-Hold can stand long-term if that’s the best that its advocates can offer. There needs to be open discussion so that people can make up their own minds. The problem with open discussion is that we have all seen that, when there is open discussion, Valuation-Informed Indexing grows and Buy-and-Hold diminishes. I don’t see any other way that things can play out. The abusive stuff just delays the inevitable.
I believe that the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis will be a turning point. But we’ll see, you know? I know for certain that I don’t want to be on the side telling people that the safe withdrawal rate is the same number at all possible valuation levels. That never should have been a thing in the first place. It’s a marketing gimmick, a money-making thing.
Is it possible that people really believed that the market was efficient back in the days when Buy-and-Hold was being developed? I think it’s possible. Shiller’s research was not available to us at that time. But that’s no excuse for letting 44 years pass without opening every site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research.
I sincerely believe that the Greaney study lacks a valuation adjustment. So I say that. There should be zero controversy on the question of whether I should feel 100 percent free to state my honest views. The issue today is that, if people are permitted to post honestly (even Bill Bernstein said that the safe withdrawal rate was 2 percent at the top of the bubble), the 44-year cover-up is exposed. We are arguing over whether the biggest act of financial fraud in the history of the United States should come to an end or should be permitted to continue destroying people’s live. I vote enthusiastically for bringing it to an end.
Rob
All your delusional posts have been answered thousands of times. We don’t believe you and we don’t need your help. Fix your own problems. You are the one that is broke.
Okay.
Please mark me down as saying that I sincerely believe that the Greaney retirement study lacks a valuation adjustment.
My best wishes to you.
Rob
Please mark me down as saying that you have been answered thousands upon thousands of times on that comment and you still ignore everyone. Why shouldanyone give you the courtesy of reading your comments when you ignore everyone else?
You’re free to not read my comments, Anonymous.
I am going to continue saying that the Greaney study lacks a valuation adjustment in any event.
Rob