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

A person would have to be drunk to believe in VII.

I don’t think so, Anonymous.

I think it is common sense.

In every other market that exists, we all practice price discipline. I have never heard anyone question that that is the right thing to do. So it’s simple and non-controversial.

When it comes to stock investing, the way we practice price discipline is by engaging in market timing. Shiller showed that the value proposition of stocks varies depending on the valuation level that applies. So the common-sense thing to do is to vary your stock allocation in response to big shifts in valuations so that your risk profile is roughly constant over time, That’s Valuation-Informed Indexing! That’s the entire deal. That’s the concept. You take Buy-and-Hold, which is wonderful in many ways, and you incorporate market timing into the mix and you have Valuation-Informed Indexing. Now you’ve really got something that works!

But there’s controversy.

Huh? What the f? Where does this controversy stuff come from? Why is there even one person in the world who feels so opposed to the idea of practicing price discipline when buying stocks that he would say that someone would have to be drunk to believe in Valuation-Informed Indexing?

It’s because we did not always have Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research available to us. Buy-and-Hold was developed in the 1960s. Shiller did not publish his “revolutionary’ (his word) research findings until 1981. Had Shiller published in 1961, there never would have been a Buy-and-Hold. It would have been Valuation-Informed Indexing all along. It’s possible that we would have called it Buy-and-Hold. But the thing that we would have come up with if we had had Shiller’s research available to us at the time would have called for market timing (the long-term variety, obviously) by all investors. And there would have been no controversy attached to it. We all want the same things. We all want to be able to invest effectively. So we all would have went with what made sense and with what the research supported. Easy, peasey.

The problem was this thing called the Efficient Market Theory. There was never any research supporting the Efficient Market Theory. It was just an assumption. Economists thought that it made sense that investors would act rationally in pursuit of their own self-interest, which is to get prices right. And it does make sense so long as you ignore the fact that humans are highly emotional creatures. Given that Shiller’s research was not available to us, a lot of us came to believe that this Efficient Market Theory thing was real. If the Efficient Market Theory were real, market timing would be a mistake and Buy-and-Hold would be the ideal strategy. So we went with that.

Then Shiller came along and blew it all up.

And the Buy-and-Holders — did nothing. They didn’t change their strategy to reflect what we learned from this “revolutionary” (Shiller’s word) research. They just acted as if nothing had happened. They just kept rolling along.

And here we are. It’s now 50 times harder to acknowledge that market timing is always required as it would have been to acknowledge that in 1981. It looks bad to have engaged in a 39-year cover-up. But we cannot move backwards in time. We are where we are. There has been a 39-year cover-up and as a society we need to come to terms with it.

The idea that market timing is 100 percent required for every investor makes perfect sense. There shouldn’t be anything even a tiny bit controversial about it. The controversy comes from the unfortunate reality that we once didn’t know everything there is to know about stock investing and so we made a mistake and now it hurts to say those words “I” and “Was” and “Wrong.” But the idea that market timing (price discipline!) is required is the future and we are going to have to learn how to say those words sooner or later. So we are all better off just doing it now and moving on to a better future as soon as possible.

I think it is the idea that it is not necessary to practice price discipline when buying stocks that is evidence of drunkenness, Anonymous. I think that the idea that market timing is always required is just common sense. And the fact that 39 years of peer-reviewed research supports it is just icing on the cake.

I naturally wish you all the best of luck with whatever investment strategies you elect to follow, in any event.

Common-Sense 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:

So you only considered one Shiller article from 1981 as the entire body of research over the last 4 decades.

To make sense of what’s happened, you have to consider where the idea that market timing is not requited came from. The intuitive idea would be that market timing is absolutely required. In every other market that exists, price discipline is key. Price discipline is what makes markets work. In the stock investing realm, it is by engaging in market timing that investors practice price discipline. So, in ordinary circumstances, you would think that everyone who works in this field would have always urged investors to practice market timing, that there never would have been a single dissenting voice. But there clearly are many, many dissenting voices. Why?

The answer is — the Efficient Market Theory. The Efficient Market Theory is an academic construct. It has never been proven. That’s what it is called a “theory.” It comes from Adam Smith economics. Adam Smith economics is rooted in the idea that consumers make decisions about purchases through a thinking process in which they engage in the rational pursuit of their self-interest. Eugene Fama (who was awarded a Nobel prize on the same day that Shiller was) took the Rational Man concept and applied it in the stock investing realm. How would the stock market work if investors made decisions about purchases through a thinking process in which they engage in rational pursuit of their self-interest?

If the market were efficient, Buy-and-Hold would be the ideal strategy. If the market were efficient, stocks would always be priced at as close to their proper price as it was possible to determine, based on the information available to investors at the time. Risk would be constant. Investors would not know in advance in which direction prices were going to move. The default best-guess as to what the annual return would be would always be the 6.5 percent real average historical return and there would be a realistic understanding that the odds that the return would be greater than that or less than that would always be the same. Returns would determined by economic developments. Since economic developments cannot be predicted, stock returns could not be predicted. They would play out in the form of a random walk.

The Efficient Market Theory was a real thing. Thousands of smart and good people believed in it. Economists wrote about it and talked about it all the time. They believed in it. So Buy-and-Hold, the academic model for understanding how stock investing works, became the dominant model. Then Shiller blew that world up in 1981, with his “revolutionary” (his word) Nobel-prize-winning research showing that the market is not efficient. If the market is not efficient, then Buy-and-Hold is no more, It does not make sense not to engage in market timing (price discipline). Stock investing risk is not constant, it is variable. The safe withdrawal rate is not one number, it is a number that changes depending on the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins.

Humans are not Vulcans. They have emotions. So huge scientific breakthroughs are not always awarded immediate acceptance. There is often a process that the humans need to work through to overcome the cognitive dissonance that interferes with their ability to process a big change in their understanding of a subject of huge importance to them. So not everyone gave up on Buy-and-Hold and became a Valuation-Informed Indexer in 1981 But, going by the science of the thing, that’s what they should have done. The Efficient Market Theory died in 1981. So Buy-and-Hold died in 1981. It should have been replaced by Valuation-Informed Indexing, which is the academic model for understanding how stock investing works that incorporates all the things that we believed about stock investing in 1980 except for the belief that market timing is not required, which was discredited by the research that Shiller published in a peer-reviewed journal in 1981.

Now we know how stock investing works. Good for us. The next step is to get the word out so that we can bring an end to the economic crises that the widespread promotion of strategies that do not call for market timing always bring on sooner or later. Getting the word out should be easy. Lots of people want to know how stock investing works, for obvious reasons. And lots of people want to help those people learn what they need to learn because there’s a lot of personal fulfillment to be obtained by doing so and because there’s a lot of money to be made by doing so.

There’s one thing that stands in our way: You Goons. People do not want to see their loved ones threatened with physical violence. People do not want to see their careers destroyed. People do not want to see their reputations destroyed. People do not want to see any of that garbage. So, to move forward as a society in our understanding of how stock investing works, we need to put you Goons in prison, where you belong, so that the rest of us can enjoy the amazing learning experience that awaits us when we put all the smelly Buy-and-Hold garbage behind us and get about the business of developing the first true research-based model for understanding how stock investing works, Valuation-Informed Indexing.

There has never been any research supporting the idea that market timing is not required. Wade Pfau researched that question very carefully. He spent months on the project. He was astounded. He had heard so many times that market timing is not required (or is not even a good idea!) that he started out believing that there must be research saying so. But no. There is none. The Efficient Market Theory was an ASSUMPTION. No one ever checked on its validity until Shiller did in 1981 and he of course found that the assumption does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It turns out that investors are humans, not Vulcans. It turns out that stock investing risk is variable, not constant. It turns out that the safe withdrawal rate is a number that varies from 1.6 to 9.0, not a number that is always 4 percent. It turns out that market timing always works and is always 100 percent required. It turns out that Buy-and-Hold is the purest and most dangerous Get Rich Quick scheme ever concocted by the human mind.

Does everyone know this and accept this today? No, not by a long shot. About 10 percent of the population knows it and accepts it today. But, once the laws of the United States are being administered in a reasonable way in the investing advice realm, that 10 percent will grow to 20 percent and then to 40 percent and then to 80 percent. We need as a people to insist on reasonable enforcement of the law if we are to tap into the amazing benefits that follow from knowing at last the realities of stock investing. The research goes all one way. There is no legitimate intellectual debate here, just the need to correct an unfortunate misunderstanding that was developed in the 1960s and that was exposed nearly four decades ago. We should be permitting honest discussion of the last 39 years of peer-reviewed research at every internet site and I believe that we will be soon after the onset of the next price crash,when we will all see with our own eyes just how destructive a force the idea that market timing is not required always turns out to be in the long run.

I hope that that helps at least a tiny bit, dear Goon friend.

Scientific-Minded 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:

How big of a book is this to cause such a delay?

It’s the most important book ever published in the field of personal finance, in my assessment. Under the dominant model for understanding how stock investing works (Buy-and-Hold), market timing is a bad thing. According to the last 39 years of peer-reviewed research in this field, market timing is the key to long-term success. Say that it costs us as a society $100,000 each time someone says “market timing might not work” instead of “market timing is price discipline and is always, always, always required,” That adds up to trillions of dollars in lost wealth over time. Yikes!

So I want to do a good job. I want to be sure to get it right. I am close. But it appears that it may take me another three months to have a book in hand that meets my standards.

Wish me luck!

Rob the Scribe

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:

And there you go blaming John Greaney and others. Start taking responsibility. Your timing scheme failed. You ruined your own retirement. Stop trying to find a scape goat. You can’t change history. Accept your failures, learn from them and then move on by fixing the mess you got into.

I blame Greaney. But I certainly don’t blame only Greaney. I blame myself (I failed to speak up about the error in Greaney’s retirement study for three years because I was afraid of what the reaction would be). I blame all of us. The Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold urge is inherent in human nature. Shiller’s research shows us how to overcome one of the big weaknesses of human nature by quantifying the effect that irrational exuberance has on stock pricing and thereby empowering us all to resist the Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold urge by engaging in market timing.

Greaney did not behave well. But Greaney did not do this by himself. It is our collective tolerance of Greaney’s behavior that is the real story. We say what we believe about that behavior when we enact laws against it. But those laws are not self-enforcing. To benefit from Shiller’s amazing Nobel-prize-winning insights, we need to insist on reasonable enforcement of the laws that apply in every field of human endeavor outside of the investment advice field.

Or so Rob Bennett sincerely believes, you know, Sammy?

My best wishes to you, dear friend.

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:

There are two problems with that.

1. With your timing scheme, you wasted the last two decades on the sidelines, spending down your nest egg, forcing you back to work. It’s too late for any crash to save you now as you have little to nothing to put back in the market (timing failure).

2. After all your childish talk about goons, made up death threats, made up job threats, references to jury trials, prison threats, dreams of people paying you $500 million settlements, etc., I don’t think anyone has even the slightest interest in revisiting all those delusional rantings.

I disagree with all of that, Sammy.

I am a personal finance journalist. That’s how I make my living. Our inability as a society to make the transition from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing is the biggest personal finance story in our nation’s history. So naturally I am going to work it as hard as I can and for as long as I can. And I will of course be rewarded for my efforts once we decide as a society to launch the national discussion that in an ideal world would have been launched in 1981, when Shiller published his research showing that the market is efficient and that there therefore is precisely zero chance that a Buy-and-Hold (price indifferent) strategy could ever work for even a single long-term investor.

I have seen two sorts of reactions to my work over the past 18 years. I have seen intensely positive reactions from a good number of people. Wade Pfau wrote me to ask if I would work with him on research proving the validity of my ideas and then concluded after 16 months of work and the exchange of scores of e-mails that “Yes, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing works!” That’s a pretty darn positive reaction.

And there have of course been the intensely negative reactions, the death threats, the demands for unjustified board bannings, the thousands of acts of defamation, the threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs. That stuff has obviously hurt me as it has hurt all of us. But that stuff does not tell me that I should agree to keep my mouth shut to appease you Goons. It tells me just the opposite, that I should insist on my right to post honestly at every site on the internet. If all of us who believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research had been insisting on our right to post honestly going back to 1981, we would as a society have solved this problem a long time ago and we would all be living better lives today.

I am doing the most important work that a personal finance journalist could ever do and I am proud of the many successes that I have enjoyed over the past 18 years. We know intellectually how stock investing works today. Shiller provided a huge piece of the puzzle with his Nobel-prize-winning research. But what good has Shiller’s work done us? Today CAPE level is one of the highest ever seen in history. Shiller’s work, as amazing as it is, does us no good, if we do not talk about it at every site on the internet. We need to talk about it to understand it and to put it to good use.

Learning how stock investing works in theory is one thing. Putting that learning to use on a day-to-day basis to make sure that stock prices never again reach the insane levels that cause us all so much financial pain is something different. I believe that my work will play a big role in getting us there at some point in the not too distant future. Cross your fingers, you know?

I wish you all the best that this life as to offer in any event, Sammy.

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:

Your 10% number is totally made up. You have taken selected comments and put them on you website as if that is confirmation that you have supporters. However, if people dig deeper, they will see just the opposite. Wade Pfau, for example detailed all the harm you caused him and will no longer communicate with you. The only comments on your board are from a few critics who check in from time to time. It looks like I am the only one that routinely comments here. All that talk above about people telling you various things is all made up. Other than the critics, there is no one else talking to you. It is all imaginary and you know it. In fact, when pressed on this topic, you blame some nameless “goons” as you call them and then tell any critic that they are going to prison. You then say that it doesn’t matter because the stock market will crash and then all these people will be coming to you with $500 million in settlement payments or in return for all your “valuable insights”.

Shiller was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics, Sammy. Fama (whose research is the foundation stone for the Buy-and-Hold strategy) was awarded a Nobel prize on the same day. The front-page article in the New York Times that reported on this noted how odd is was that two people saying opposite things about how stock investing works were awarded Nobel prizes on the same day because it is not possible that both of them are right. If Fama is right, Shiller is wrong; and, if Shiller is right, Fama is wrong.

We all need to know which it is. Our retirements are riding on this question.

Had Shiller published his research in 1961 rather than in 1981, we all would be Valuation-Informed Indexers today. Unfortunately, it did not happen that way. There was a time when all that was known was what Fama’s research showed (that short-term timing never works) and when Shiller’s findings (that long-term timing is required for those seeking to keep their risk profile constant over time) were not yet available. So an entire industry was built around Buy-and-Hold and now there is a great deal of institutional resistance to exploring the far-reaching implications of Shiller’s research findings.

Wade Pfau and I worked together for 16 months. Those were the happiest days of his life. We co-authored research that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. He was so excited about our findings (we showed that investors who switch to Valuation-Informed Indexing can thereby reduce the risk of stock investing by nearly 70 percent) that he told me that he was giving thought to submitting our research to the most prestigious journal in the field. Yes, he became afraid of how you Goons could damage his career and stopped communicating with me. Not because that is what he wanted. Because that is what he felt he needed to do to be able to continue to work in this field.

The question is — Is that a good thing? I think that it is a very bad thing. I think that we all should be learning everything that Wade Pfau and lots of other researchers would be happy to teach us if they felt free to explore these questions openly and publicly and in great depth.

The Wade Pfau incident was not an isolated incident. I have seen the same general story play out on numerous occasions. Rob Arnott told me that he has had similar experiences. He told me that he believes that my work is “solid.” But he also told me that he is afraid to speak out too strongly because researchers who were planning to do work on his investing beliefs were taken aside and told that it would be a career-limiting move to do so. This needs to change if we all are to advance in our understanding of how stock investing works in the real world.

My best wishes to you.

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:

In 2002, you detailed your “retirement plan” in which you got out of the stock market, and continue to be as of today, according to your posts. In 2005, you provided an update in which your spending had gone up at a higher than expected rate. You at stated you were returning 3.5% real and that the market returns close to 7%. You stated that you were not worried because with your VII timing strategy, you would return more than the market average and then your finances would be fine. Here we are almost 15 years after the 2005 update. You did not get back in the market to get those higher returns. As of midnight tonight, a decade has passed without that market crash that you said would have happened long ago. Early in the decade, people kept pointing out your failed predictions, so you said that if the crash did not happen by 2015, it was right to question the VII strategy. Tomorrow, we enter 2020. Your plan clearly failed and you have acknowledged that you have to get a job again as your retirement plan failed. In a preposterous attempt to save face, you claim that you really haven’t failed because all these people will want to pay you $500 million for advice on your VII strategy, that has caused you a retirement failure. It should not surprise you that no one wants to follow your plan.

Shiller published a paper in the Summer of 1996 saying that investors who stuck with their high stock allocations would come to regret it because valuations were so high. We did not see a crash by 2006 but we did see one in late 2008. In early 2009, there really were a lot of investors who expressed regret that they stuck with their high stock allocations. But the Buy-and-Holders said that the thing to do was just to stay the course and prices would head upward again. That’s what happened. People who followed the advice of the Buy-and-Holders at that time are now happy that they did so because stocks have provided very good returns for the past 10 years.

Does that show that Buy-and-Hold is the way to go? Not in my opinion. Shiller showed that, when prices go above fair-value levels, it is not a rational assessment of economic developments causing that to happen, it is irrational exuberance. It was a collapse of irrational exuberance that explained the 2008 crash and it was a resurgence of irrational exuberance that explained the big price gains of the last 10 years. The trouble is that irrational exuberance always collapses again. So, in the event that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research, we are likely to see another price crash within the next year or two or three. What will the investors who followed the advice of the Buy-and-Holders in 2009 say then? Lots of them will wish that they had learned more about Shiller’s research.

With Buy-and-Hold, you never know where you stand. Buy-and-Holders ASSUME that the numbers on their portfolio statements are real. They have never generated any peer-reviewed research showing this to be so, they just assumed it. I acknowledge that the idea has a certain surface plausibility. But Shiller published research showing that it is NOT so. His research shows a strong correlation between the valuation level that applies today and the price level that will apply ten years from today. How is it that the CAPE level is able to tell us what the price level will be 10 years from now? This is possible because irrational exuberance ALWAYS collapses. There has never been a single exception in the historical record. When prices are high, they always go down hard in the long run.

Shiller’s research lets us know something important about stocks that we did not know before. It lets us know the true value of our portfolio (the value adjusted for the effect of the irrational exuberance present in the current-day price). I like knowing the true value of my portfolio. It is a huge help in trying to plan my financial future. And I have heard from thousands of investors (and a good number of experts in the field) who feel the same way. The Buy-and-Holders don’t like Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research one tiny bit; they like believing that the numbers on their portfolio statement are real. But that’s not what the last 39 years of peer-reviewed research in this field tells us about this important question.

I wish you the best of luck with your investment strategy even though I do not personally see it as the way to go, Sammy.

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:

It was crystal clear when Shiller said it. A link was posted on your website. Your comment at the fine was that you disagreed with Shiller and that he was scared to tell the truth (which you made up).

Is the title of Shiller’s book crystal clear, Sammy? If a large part of your stock portfolio is the product of irrational exuberance, you need to adjust for that when determining whether you have saved enough to retire or not, do you not?

The subtitle of his book described his model for understanding how stock investing works as “revolutionary.” Is it not crystal clear that that means that he is saying something very different than what those who came before him said? What would you say the something very different part is?

Was it crystal clear that Shiller was advocating market timing when he told investors in the Summer of 1996 that, if they dd not lower their stock allocations, they would live to regret it within 10 years?

Was it crystal clear when Shiller was awarded a Nobel prize that that was because he added something new to our understanding of how stock investing works?

I agree with you that there was one comment that he made in one interview that made it sound like he had come to have doubts about market timing. I would like to know precisely what he meant because, if he does have doubts, we all need to know that. But I am not willing to overlook his lifetime of work because of one stray comment that he never was asked to explain or to put into context. His work is based on analysis of the historical return data. And that data did not change on the day that he made that stray comment. It still says the same thing that it said on all the occasions on which he made the case for market timing.

To the extent that Shiller truly believes that market timing is not required, I do disagree with him. I am just not willing to conclude that he believes that without more evidence. I do think that he is afraid to say with clarity what he believes re this question because I have seen scores of other experts in this field evidence fear over speaking to the question frankly. There are millions of people who have believed the Buy-and-Hold claims that market timing is not required (or that it might not even be a good idea!) and they find it very upsetting to hear that there is some question about this. So this is a very controversial question. People back away from addressing it clearly.

I think that as a society we need to speak about it openly. If Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research showing that market timing is required turns out to be legitimate, we all are going to suffer terrible losses in the not-too-distant future, losses that will be big enough to cause a reduction in consumer spending and likely bring on another economic crisis. So this is an issue that we all need to get a handle on.

Shiller’s research is a big deal. We all need to come to a better understanding of what it signifies, in my assessment.

I hope that that helps, at least a tiny bit.

I naturally wish you the best of luck with your investment strategies, regardless of what I think about the merit of those strategies.

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:

Why don’t you stop making up silly stories about criminal acts and try acting like a responsible adult for a change?

Extortion is a genuine criminal act, Anonymous.

Financial Fraud is a genuine criminal act.

Threats of physical violence are genuine criminal acts.

Greaney had not committed any criminal acts as of the morning of May 13, 2002. He had gotten an important number wrong in a retirement study posted at his web site, that’s all. Had all of the people who called themselves his friends told him to knock off the funny business when they saw his abusive stuff, it never would have turned criminal and he wouldn’t be in the spot that he is in today. Neither would you. I asked Motley Fool to help out. Motley Fool wanted the money that came in from Greany’s promotion of a pure Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold approach to stock investing. So Motley Fool didn’t help out either.

Your gripe is with Motley Fool and with all the people who didn’t call Greaney out on his b.s. when he first advanced it. I did call him out. So you have no gripe with me.

The reason why this situation has gotten so out of control is because we all like the Pretend Money that results from letting stock prices get insanely high. It’s never going to change for so long as we focus solely on being popular and not at all on being honest. I think there’s a place for honesty in this field. So I am taking a bet on the honest, research-based approach (Valuation-Informed Indexing).

We are all in the same boat. We all want the same things. We all need to know how to invest effectively for the long run. The answer is not for me to become dishonest, like you. The answer is for you to take a step in my direction and to try to at least be honest enough not to commit actual felonies.

That’s my sincere take, Anonymous. I care about you. So I am not going to sell you out like Greaney’s friends sold him out and like Motley Fool sold him out. It’s not in me. That’s not what I am about.

I wish you all good things.

Silly Stories 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:

“But I do not believe that the market is efficient.”

And it doesn’t matter whether it is efficient or not.

A buy and hold investor will receive the market return (minus very low costs) over any given period.

Investors as a whole will receive the market return (minus higher costs) over any given period.

The buy and hold investor will get a higher investment return than investors as a whole.

If buy and hold doesn’t work then investing doesn’t work.

I keep mulling this one over in my mind. Today while I was on my walk I came up with a third response.

Saying that, if Buy-and-Hold doesn’t work, stock investing doesn’t work, is like saying that, if driving drunk doesn’t work, cars don’t work.

Cars are wonderful. It would be a big loss if we had to make do without cars. But driving drunk is a very dangerous way to make use of a car. I am pro-car and anti-drunk-driving.

Similarly, stock investing is wonderful. But Buy-and-Hold (price indifferent stock investing) is a very dangerous way to invest in stocks. Refusing to engage in market timing pushes risk to the highest levels to which it can be pushed, eventually always causing a price crash and an economic crisis and all of the human suffering that follows from an economic crisis. I am pro-stock investing. But I reject out of hand the idea that there is some sort of law that requires that we all invest in the most risky way imaginable. We have 38 years of peer-reviewed research showing us what works. We should open every site on the internet to honest posting and do all that we can to spread the word re Robert Shiller’s amazing Nobel-prize-winning research findings far and wide.

Pro-Car, Pro-Stock Rob