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 had a huge accomplishment in early 2019, when I finished my article “Buy-and-Hold is Dangerous.” “

Is that article available anywhere?

Can you provide a link?

It’s not available anywhere. If we had opened every site to honest posting re the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research on the afternoon of May 13, 2002, as I proposed at the time, it would be available everywhere and we would all be living better and freer and fuller and richer lives today.

Learning is a plus. Blocking learning is a negative. That’s my sincere take, in any event.

I believe that everyone will get to see the article in the days and years following the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis. I’m proud of myself for having the courage to write it. I believe that we findamentally a good people and that there will come a day when everyone who has an interest in reading it will be able to do so.

If the only way that the people who advocate Buy-and-Hold believe that they can maintain confidence in it is to deny people access to challenges to it, Buy-and-Hold is a gravely flawed strategy. That’s my sincere belief. I was once a believer but I never would have been if I knew then what I know now. I was a Buy-and-Holder because I liked it that it was described as a research-based strategy! I’ve learned in the days since that Buy-and-Hold is the opposite of what I was looking for!

Valuation-Informed Indexing is the first true research-based strategy.

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:

Gee Rob, you finally convinced all.  I have alerted all the goons around the world and instructed them to open up the entire internet, including all of the investment boards, with orders to give you full access to every site and board.

That sounds good, Anonymous.

Please understand that the right to post honestly needs to apply to everyone, Valuation-Informed Indexers and Buy-and-Holders alike. My strong hunch is that you are playing games again with this comment. But if you were sincere about it, it would represent a huge advance for the people of the United States. We all very much need to know the true and lasting value of our investment portfolio. Effective financial planning is not possible without access to that critically important information.

My best wishes, as always.

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:

Here ia a link that shows numerous threads at bogleheads discussing Shiller and CAPE https://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=bogleheads.org&q=shiller+cape

There are numerous sites where Shiller and CAPE are discussed. The fact that you have been banned at a number of investing sites does not mean that the topic is not discussed. And the fact that you delete comments that you don’t like demonstrates why you are banned at a number of sites.

When was the Greaney retirement study corrected, Evidence?

There are people who used that study to plan a retirement.

The people who run the Bogleheads Forum know that, as soon as someone says that the safe withdrawal rate is always 4 percent, I am going to point out that it is a logical impossibilty that the safe withdrawal rate is always the same number. Thats’s why I am banned.

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 you had a serious life issue right now and needed $100k to cover the cost, would you be able to do so?  Do own a home for your retirement years?  Can you afford to go on a retirement trip?  How is that playing out for you?

I sincerely believe that the retirement study posted at John Greaney’s web site lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins, Anonymous. I had become friends with a number of the people who posted at the Motley Fool board during the three years before I worked up the courage to point out the error in the study.

That’s where I’m coming from re this thing.

My best wishes.

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:

No one else thinks there is an error, so it doesn’t need to be fixed. If you disagree, do your own study.

Funny how you ignore your errors in depleting your savings, losing your house and your wife dumping you.

It will be interesting to see how things play out in the days and years following the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis, Anonymous.

My best and warmest wishes to you and yours, in any event.

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:

“ They love, love, love conversations about the peer-reviewed research.”

Which is far from what you do when you post. People don’t love, love, love what you do, despite your claims otherwise. They have had every right to ban you and they did, just look you block people. That is why your take on board “rules” is not even relevant.

You can have your own version on what you think is honest, what you think is peer reviewed, what you think is a crisis……….all over here on your board and that were your rights end.

A good number of the site owners loved my stuff. The site administrator at the Motley Fool board told me that he thought it would be “ideal” if Greaney permitted honest posting re the research. Bill Sholar set up a separate section of his site for people to talk in peace about Valuation-Informed Indexing. It was only when you Goons threatened to burn his site to the ground that he abandoned the idea of permitting honest, research-based posting. El Supremo said that he wanted me and John Walter Russell to serve as the administators of his site. Again, he relented when the Buy-and-Hold Goon Squad at that site threatned to burn the site to the ground if he permitted honest posting re the research.

Take away the abusive and in some cases crimnal posting and there is simply no problem. You Goons make up about 10 percent of the board communities. About 10 percent are Valuation-Informed Indexers. The other 80 percent are Normals. They are Buy-and-Holders. They aren’t at all thriled to hear that their stock portfolio is worth a lot less than what they have been led by Buy-and-Holders to believe it is worth. But they are fine with honest posting being permitted and can be brought around to the research-based approach in time. Those people matters. You Goons today have an influence on what is said at our boards far greater than what your numbers suggest your influence should be. We need to encourage the site owners to show more courage by enforcing their published site rules in a reasonable way even though it enrages you Goons when they do so.

That’s where I’m coming from re this matter, in any event.

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:

Rob

Twitter is about open as anything gets. Post there for a while – if your ideas are all you say they are, you will have million followers in no time. Sparring here with random “goons” has gotten you no where.

-Interested Observer

I’m not “sparring” with you Goons. I am trying to learn from you. We obviously would all learn 20 times more and 20 times faster if you participated in the discussions on good faith. You obviously are not open to that we are all in this together, you need to know how stock investing works as much as anyone else does. So understanding how you have come to believe that the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research should be ignored has value.

And as a nation of people we have given you veto power over what is said about stock investing on the internet. It was a mistake to give you that power. But you have been given it. Your power is a reality of the stock investing world in the year 2023. So we need to understand why we have done that. I believe that a big part of the explanation is that we all have goonishness within us. We LIKE high CAPE values. We were pushing stock prices up to crazy levels long before you Goons came on the scene. So there’s a sense in which we all carry a big of the Goon spirity within us. That’s the spirit that we all need to come to understand if we are going to invest more effectively in the future.

I’ve put things on Twitter. I had a bunch of twitter posts after the Wade Pfau flip Investing is a serious business. It needs to be explored in places where serious people meet and where interested observers can feel safe asking questions. All of the bans have been put in place in such venues. Those are the right venues for these discussions. We just need to lift the bans and permit and encourage honest posting re the peer-reviewed research. There’s nothing wrong with the venues that we have tried. The problem is that we have not had enough people speaking up for the need to permit honest posting re the research at those venues. I believe that that may change in the days and years following the onset of the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis. We’ll see.

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:

Research is not banned.  You are banned.  All the information is out there and the world doesn’t submit to the whims of Rob Bennett.

Okay, Anonymous.

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:

“The trouble started when I tried posting at his site, I pointed out in some of my comments that other sites continued to report the safe withdrawal rate inaccurately and described some of the abusive tactics that had been employed to keep the people who read these sites from being informed about the errors in the Buy-and-Hold studies.”

In other words you didn’t want to discuss investing matters at Todd’s site.

You wanted to make the discussion about you and your history at other sites.

The ban on honest posting re the peer-reviewed research is an investing matter, Evidence. In two important ways.

One. There were people at the Motley Fool board who believed that the Greaney study was legitimate. There shouldn’t be one person on the planet who doesn’t want them to be informed of the error in his study (it lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins). There were people in that board community who used the Greaney study as guidance in planning their retirement. I was there.

Two. The publication of Shillers research launched a revolutionary advance in our understanding of how stock investing works. We should all want knowledge to advance as qucickly as possible since every advance achieved helps every laat one of us to live a better and fuller and richer and freer life. There are a lot of smart people posting at all of the sites at which honest posting re the research is now banned. There is huge leverage to be gained by opening all of those sites to honest posting by thje close of business today, if not a good bit sooner.

That’s where I am coming from re this one, in any event.

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’ve said that 10,000 times. I heard you the first 10,000 times. I don’t see any particular need for you to say it 10,000 additional times.”

Right back atcha Rob.

Fair enough.

Rob