Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

That is B.S., Rob.  But it is not really the question.   How is this helping you with your situation?  Is it just an outlet to help you mentally cope?  Is it something that helps you provide a cover for laziness?

I believe that everyone who comments in any way on stock investing should be advancing his or her sincere thoughts and I believe that those thoughts should be rooted in what the peer-reviewed research shows. That’s how we learn. I don’t believe that there should be any penalty whatsoever for expressing one’s sincere thoughts. It is because people have been intimidated into keeping it zipped that irrational exuberance (which benefits no one in the long run) has gotten so out of control.

Think where we would be as a nation of people if everyone who believed that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research was legitimate research had said that that was what he believed going back to the day in 1981 when that research was published. We sure wouldn’t have a CAPE today of 38. We wouldn’t have experienced that horrible Buy-and-Hold Crisis of 2008. We wouldn’t have seen all of the political frictions (the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy Wall Street Movement) that followed from it. We wouldn’t today be living under the cloud of seeing millions of failed retirements and hundreds of thousands of failed businesses and millions of people thrown out of work in the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis. Irrational exuberance is seriously bad stuff, you know?

I wish that I had a magic wand and that I could make all the resistance to permitting discussion of the peer-reviewed research go away and thereby permit us all to live better and fuller and richer and freer lives. I don’t have a magic wand. But it’s not like we would need to publish new research or enact new laws or persuade people to care about their retirements to make all the good stuff happen. We already have all that. We need only one thing — to have the courage to stand up to the Buy-and-Hold goon squads and say what we believe. I am asking everyone who lives in the United States to do that.

It doesn’t sound like I am asking much. But, if I don’t have the courage to do myself what I am asking others to do, that’s pretty darn lame, is it not? So I do what I am asking others to do. The hardest thing with this story is explaining how things could be the way they are. We all care about getting stock investing right. We have 44 years of peer-reviewed research showing us how to do it. We have a book that explains it all. We have an internet communications medium that permits us to get the word out to millions overnight. We have the 16 months of effort that Wade Pfau put into determining whether there had ever been any research supporting this loony-tunes idea that maybe there are some circumstances in which valuation-based market timing is not 100 percent required of every investor. And yet this is where we are?

This is where we are. The Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold urge that resides within all of us is a very, very, very, very strong urge. That’s the story here. We are 95 percent of the way there toward overcoming it and we very much need to overcome it. But we very, very much would like to find some way to avoid having to overcome it. That’s the story. We have as a nation of people adopted a taboo against discussion of the 44 years of peer-reviewed research showing that valuations affect long-term returns and insuring that we continue to suffer from our ignorance of how stock investing works. All that we need to do to overcome that taboo is to apply the same laws and social norms that govern every field of human endeavor other than the investment advice field in the investment advice field as well. Can we do it?

I think we can do it. I think we are going to do it. I think we are too close not to take the few final steps required to begin living happier lives together. But I need people to stand up to you goons, I need people to express their sincere views and to speak up in support of the right of others to express their sincere views. I ask others to do this magic thing. Am I willing to do it myself?

I like to think that I have what it takes to do it myself. 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 of stock investing held on the internet. That’s pretty much it.

I believe that the arc of human history bends toward the use of rationality in investment analysis. I believe that deep in our hearts we want to get there and I believe that we will get there. I believe that there is 20 times more good in this story than there is bad. I believe that we are fundamentally a good people. So we are going to find a way to leave the Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold stuff behind and help people to learn about and follow research-based stock investing strategies. I like us. I want to see us enjoy the benefits of the amazing research that Shiller provided for us 44 years ago.

Does that help?

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

If 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

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

I just listened to a seminar from Wade Pfau on Fours Ways to Manage Sequence of Return Risk. Wade does not recommend market timing. Further, he starts with a 4% withdrawal rate and then offers up four paths to offset risks/drops:

1. Spend conservatively
2. Spend flexibility
3. Reduce portfolio volatility
4. Use a buffer asset

The portfolio allocation was always constant and market timing was not recommended. Many options were discussed, but a very clear cut path was to build a social security bridge (additional savings to cover the time between retirement and maxing out social security at the age of 70. After that, utilizing an asset buffer to be used during downturns. Both a very simple tools that give you certainty without needing gimmicks like trying to time the market (which makes people go broke).
The unfortunate part of all this is that there is not one single thing that can help out someone that does not have existing savings and/or a job brining in income.

It sounds like he is going out of his way to avoid mentioning the most simple and direct and obvious solution to the problem, of Overvaluation. Overvaluation is a problem. It makes stocks more risky. It brings down return. It’s not hard for an investor to figure out what to do to solve the problem — engage in valuation-based market timing.

Is there some sort of negative attached to the idea of keeping one’s risk profile constant over time? I sure can’t think of one. And Wade couldn’t think of one back in the days when we were working together and he was excited to explore the possibilities of Valuation-Informed Indexing. There has to be some sort of explanation for this weird behavior (I don’t mean just in the case of Wade,I mean for lots of people).

One, the people who developed the Buy-and-Hold strategy did not have Shiller’s amazing research available to them at the time they were doing it and they made the mistake of thinking that market timing (price discipline!) might not be 100 percent required for every investor. Then they didn’t want to acknowledge the mistake. So they covered it up. Then they didn’t want to acknowledge the cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up. This can’t go on forever. At some point we just need to come clean and acknowledge that O COURSE valuation-based market timing (price discipline!) is required for every investor. It’s not possible for the rational human mind to imagine any possible downside.

Two,acknowledging the importance of market timing would bring on a recession. We are currently at two times fair-value price levels. So to tell investors the truth about stock investing as revealed by the last 44 years of peer-reviewed research would translate into the loss of trillions of dollars of consumer buying power. That wouldn’t be good. But at least it would bring this crazy stuff to an end. Once we free ourselves to talk realistically about stock investing, we would never again need to worry about bull markets or bear markets or economic collapses. That seems worth it to me. We should do whatever we can to soften the blow (and there certainly are things that can be done), But we need to get the cover-up behind us and start enjoying the benefits of the last 44 years of peer-reviewed research.

Price discipline is what makes markets work, Anonymous. In the stock market, price discipline is achieved through market timing. It’s pretty darn essential. Twisting one’s self into a pretzel to ignore the obvious solution to a pressing problem to avoid having to point out an error made by the Buy-and-Holders is just silliness. I of course understand why people feel pressured to go that way. But it is foolishness. The thing to do when stocks get insanely overpriced is to buy less of them. That’s how you bring the price back down to reasonable levels.

My sincere take.

Rob

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

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

Take a look at my Tesla.  It doesn’t have a microwave oven.  That must be an error.

That’s what we’re up against.

If we decide as a nation of people in the wake of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis that we would like to bring an end to bull markets and bear markets and economic crises, the last 44 years of peer-reviewed research is sitting there waiting for us. I say “go for it.”

Emotion (marketing) vs. reason (research),

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

“Every 30-year period has failed. Every 20-year period has failed. Every ten-year period has failed. Every five-year period has failed. Every one-year period has failed.“

That is factually incorrect. When you make statements like that, it tells people that you are either lying or you have no ability to even look at numbers. With the comments you make, it is not surprising

Say that someone eats three ice-cream sundaes for dinner seven nights a week. And for a long time he lives. Then at age 45 he has a massive heart attack and dies. Do you say that his diet worked for all those years? I say that he was engaging in high-risk behavior and that the diet failed the first time he employed it because it did damage to his long-term health. It would have been better if he had been eating sensibly.

Rob

that you are completely broke and the investment community has shunned you.

 

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

The markets go up and down every day. No 30 year period has ever failed. As such, your comments are not relevant.

To the opposite, if you are not fully funded by your 60’s, you have a failed retirement.

You are trying to make up a story about how a system that has always worked will potentially fail and at the same time talk about a system that has never worked will somehow magically become successful.

Every 30-year period has failed. Every 20-year period has failed. Every ten-year period has failed. Every five-year period has failed. Every one-year period has failed.

Stocks are an amazing asset class. They offer a 6.5 percent real average annual return. Is there any way to mess up such a great asset class? You could encourage investors to push prices up so high that you turn that 6.5 percent return into a negative number. That’s what the Buy-and-Holders did,

The trick to stock investing is to always, always, always practice price discipline and to always tune out the Wall Street Con Men who say that they have a funny feeling that it’s all going to turn out different this time. What if it doesn’t turn out different? What it it turns out the same> That’s the one that keeps me up at night.

I believe that we should permit honest posting re the peer-reviewed research at every site. It solves a lot of problems and it creates a lot of exciting opportunities. Yes, it means that the people who developed the Buy-and-Hold strategy in the days before Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research was published to say the words “I” and “Was” and “Wrong.” Who cares, you know? I can live with that.

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

For the last 2 decades, you keep saying that we have to see how things turn out. That is not a valid statement for a large percentage of our population, including you and me. Right now, 1/3 of working adults are already retirement between the ages of 60 and 64 (my group) and 70% are retired between the ages of 65 and 69 (your age group). Clearly, people need to have a fully funded retirement when they turn 60 since it is too late to fix the short fall.

There is no way that people can keep sitting around for decades more to see if your VII strategy FINALLY works. They need to go with a system that has always worked. Buy and hold has worked over EVERY 30 year period. That is not even debatable. It is a fact as we can look at history.

Many Buy-and-Holders believe today that they have fully funded retirements but, if they took the last 44 years of peer-reviewed research into consideration, they would see that they do not. Today’s CAPE level is 38. We usually see the CAPE drop to 8 in a Buy-and-Hold Crisis. That’s a drop of more than 75 percent. Say that there’s a fellow who needs a portfolio of $1 million to have a fully funded retirement and that he has that today. Then we experience a Buy-and-Hold Crisis and he is left with a portfolio of less than $250,000. He no longer has a fully funded retirement.

Irrational exuberance is a real thing, Anonymous. Irrational exuberance is the cancer of the personal finance realm. You could have a guy who on the surface appears to be perfectly healthy but a terrible cancer is eating away at his insides. Would you say that this guy is in good health? I would not. To know whether our retirements are fully funded or not, we need to know how much of our retirement account is real and how much is just phony baloney irrational exuberance.

How much do you subtract from the number on your portfolio statement for the effect of irrational exuberance?

Buy-and-Hold has never worked. It’s not even logically possible that it ever could work. Buy-and-Holders don’t subtract for the effect of irrational exuberance. It is not possible to engage in effective financial planning if you are not even open to looking at what you need to look at to know how much wealth you have accumulated over the years. That’s the most important question. It is fundamental.

Rob

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 are broke and divorced.  Using your analogy, you have been drinking several cases of beer every day for the last 20+ years.

And all of it is due to abusive behavior of Buy-and-Holders. If Buy-and-Hold were a real thing, there never would have been a single abusive post. If Buy-and-Hold were a real thing, every Buy-and-Holder would welcome challenges to it because responding to the challenges would permit them to sharpen their understanding of it.

What does it say about Buy-and-Hold that I am broke and divorced? It sure doesn’t say anything good.

Rob

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 are right about everything, Rob.  That is why you have tens of millions sitting in your account right now, thousands of followers flocking to your website everyday making thousands of posts in support and your wife begging to come back.

The reason why I am banned is that, once the transition is achieved, everyone posting honestly re the research will have those things. The greater the advance, the stronger the opposition from those who saw success under the old, discredited system. Going by that rule, I think it would be fair to say that the move from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing is the biggest advance in the history of personal finance.

I can live with that.

Rob