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

“We are all on the same side.”

Again, no we are not. When people stop talking to you, they are not on your side. All the major boards banned you. Wade stopped talking to you. Your wife divorced you. How much more evidence do you need before you accept the fact that no one is on your side.

I would need to see that Shiller was not able to get his research published in a peer-reviewed journal. I would need to see that he could not get his book picked up by a major publisher. I would need to see that he was not awarded a Nobel prize. I would need to see Wade Pfau conclude after spending 16 months researching my investing ideas that: “No, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing doesn’t work!” I would need to see something less than thousands of our fellow community members express a desire that honest posting re the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research be permitted at every site. That sort of thing.

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 not owed anything by the people of the United States. People do not have to do one single thing for you, despite your demands, what you think you are owed or what you think you are entitled with. You haven’t earned a dime until someone else has agreed to pay you for something specific in return.

If you REALLY earned something that someone else asked you to do, for an agreed upon amount, then you have something. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.

The people of the United States owe THEMSELVES the opportunity to live in a world in which the same laws that apply in every field of human endeavor outside of the investment advice field apply in the investing advice field as well. And there is a part of them that already understands how important it is that they deliver that gift to themselves. If we did not as a nation of people believe that there is merit in learning about what the peer-reviewed resarch teaches us all about how stock investing works in the real world, we would have shut down all the peer-reviewed journals. We would not have permitted Shiller’s book to be published or made it a best-seller. We would not have awarded him a Nobel prize or invited him to participate in interviews. There would not have been thousands of us who put forward posts expressing a desire that every discussion board and blog be opened to honest posting re the last 42 years of peer-reviewed research in this field.

I think it would be fair to say that the good news re this matter has been 20 times more good than the bad news re this matter has been bad. We are as a nation of people on our way to some very exciting places.

My best and warmest wishes to you and yours regardless of what investment strategy you elect to follow.

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:

Posts like that (filled with lies) are why you are banned.

That’s not an entirely untrue statement.

There are two levels of contention between the Buy-and-Holders and the Valuation-Informed Indexers. There are the matters of substance, which are what ultimately matter. In the days when Buy-and-Hold was being developed, we did not have Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns available to us. So the people who came up with Buy-and-Hold advanced this loony tunes idea that market timing might not always be required (there was research showing that short-term timing does not work). Now that Shiller’s research is available, we need as a naton of people to correct that error. The Buy-and-Holders feel that it would make them look bad to acknowledge the error. So they continue to suggest that market timing (price discipline!) is not required. That’s the thing that matters. We need to be reminding investors of the importance of market timing at every site on a daily basis and it makes the Buy-and-Holders feel bad for people to learn of their mistake.

Then there are the matters of process, the abusive and in some cases criminal acts that a number of Buy-and-Holders have engaged in (and that a much larger number of Buy-and-Holders have tolerated) to block discussions of the susbtantive questions. This is where the death threats and the acts of extortion and so on come into play. The substantive error is understandable. An error was made at a time when all of the research was not yet available. Who cares, you know? The criminal behavior is something different. That translates into prison sentences. So there is a very, very high level of concern re that stuff. People who would be willing to permit discussion of the substantive matters are not willing to permit discussions of the criminal stuff.

That means that the Buy-and-Holders possess an important piece of leverage in their efforts to suppress discussion of the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research, Engage in criminal behavior and the discussions will be shut down just about everywhere. They get what they want even though they have nothing to offer on the substantive side because their behavior is so outrageous that most site owners do not want to entertain discussions of such things.

I am in favor of doing anything within the realm of reason to make it easier for Buy-and-Holders to engage in constuctive discussions. So I praise them to the skies for all of the many amazing contributions they have made to our understanding of how stock investing works. However, I draw the line at engaging in criminal behavior myself. If I were to say that I believe that the retirement study set forth at John Greaney’s web site contains a valuation adjustment, that would be an obvious case of financial fraud. Fraud is a crime in the United States. It is a felony. That means prison time. So thanks but no thanks, you know? Not this boy. No can do.

The Buy-and-Holders did great work. They made one very big mistake. It is in everyone’s interest that that mistake be corrected as soon as possible. So I am not willing to ignore the mistake with the hope that doing that would appease you Goons. But I do very much believe that all of us trying to get the internet opened to honest posting re the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research should make it a regular practice to point out how, outside of that mistake, the Buy-and-Holders have done a good amount of amazing, helpful work.

My best wishes to you.

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:

Can people decide what they will allow and not allow on their own website?

Within reason.

But web-site owners need to follow the law, just as does everyone else. Death threats are not permitted. Acts of extortion are not permitted. Financial fraud is not permitted. Acts of defamation are not permitted. A web site owner who permits that sort of thing can be held responsible for the damages suffered.

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 site needs to be open to discussions on why Tesla’s don’t have microwave ovens.

I’ve never heard anyone object to such a discussion. I wonder why the reaction is so different when the topic suggested is whether or not the Greaney retirement study contains an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins.

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:

Would you be surprised to know that your ex-wife gives a different story ?

I have a funny feelng that I possess a much better understanding of what she thinks about these matters than you do, Anonymous. It was her infant who was being threatened when I had to tell her that you Goons said that you would be paying visits to our house because I had “crossed” you by pointing out the error in the Greaney study. That shouldn’t have happened. None of this should have happened. The proper response by Greaney when I pointed out the error in his retirement study (it lacks a valuation adjustment!) was for him to correct the study. Problem solved!

Then we would have all spent the last 20 years mining powerful insights on the realities of stock investing on top of other powerful insights on the realities of stock investing. We would not have a CAPE value of 30 hanging over our heads. We would all be living fuller and better and richer lives.

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:

Yet you are broke, divorced and have no friends………….and think you have conformed.  Nope.  Not even close.

I go to sleep at night knowing that I stood up for my fellow community members who were being taken in by the claims made in the Greaney retirement study. That’s something. That’s a lot. That’s everything. I wouldn’t trade in that feeling for all the money in the world.

If Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold were a real thing, no one would ever suffer any financial penalty for pointing out the errors in Buy-and-Hold retirement studies. If Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold were a real thing, Buy-and-Holders would ENCOURAGE people to ask questions about the methodoligies used in their studies. The fact that a good number of Buy-and-Holders don’t care about getting the numbers right in their retitement studies tells a tale that needs to be told far and wide.

People use retirement studies to plan retirements. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

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 is a solution.   If you don’t think stocks are cheap enough for you, then don’t buy them.  We are all big boys and girls here and can make our own decisions.

That’s a perfect solution, 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:

“Do you believe that Robert Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns is legitimate research, Evidence?”

Of course.

That’s good to hear.

That’s why I say that we all should be practicing market timing on a daily basis. I certainly don’t believe that we should be changing our stock allocations on a daily basis. The historical data shows that we can do just fine making allocation changes only once every ten years on average. But we should always be aware of where the CAPE value stands and of what it would mean for our stock portfolio if our stock allocation came to no longer make sense for us given shifts in valuation levels. That’s something that we should be thinking about in the back of our mind on a daily basis.

I don’t say that I wouldn’t believe in market timing had Shiller not piblished his amazing research findings. I like to think that common sense alone would have brought me around to that view (there has never in the history of humankind been a market that could remain functional without the participants in that market practicing price discipline). But I think it was a breakthrough when Shiller published research showing that what common sense tells us must be so re stock investing really is so in the real world.

My best and warmest wishes to you and yours.

Rob

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

Yes but it also doesn’t work anymore and I don’t think it was adequately tested out of sample. Due to a number of changes the average p/e has more or less permanently shifted.

Rob – you literally read like an insane version of chat gpt.

Okay. Now we at least have something that is kinda sorta within the realm of reason. That’s progress.

I believe that stocks will continue to perform in the future at least somewhat as they have always performed in the past. It is certainly the case that today’s CAPE value is a good bit higher than what we usually see. But there is no reason to conclude that that’s a permanent situation. There have been many cases in the past in which stock prices have TEMPORARILY traveled to insanely high levels and then returned to reasonable levels or continued dropping to much lower than reasonable levels. It’s all part of the phenomenon that Shiller calls “irrational exuberance.” We will all know more when we see how low prices fall in the days following the next Buy-and-Hold Crisis and how long they remain at those lower levels once they fall to them. If irrational exuberance is truly still a thing, that is going to show up in the shifts in stock prices that we all see as time goes on.

Have i ever given the slightest indication that I would object if you said during board discussions that you believe that Shiller’s research “doesn’t work anymore”? I believe it still works. So I 100 percent need to say that in all comments that I offer. But I have zero doubt that, if you say in response to my comments indicating that I believe that Shiller’s research still works that you don’t believe that it does, you are going to see lots of people agree with you. Fine, you know? It’s all part of the wonderful game.

Some people believe one thing, other people believe another thing. That’s why they call them DISCUSSION boards. People with different perspectives DISCUSS their differences and see if they can learn something about the other point of view by talking things over a bit. That’s the board project. At the old Motley Fool board. And at every board I have posted at during the first 20 years of the discussions.

Maybe I’m wrong. It’s been known to happen. If it turns out that I am wrong about something, and we permit honest posting, as I strongly believe we should, that is going to come out in time. And of course it works the other way around too. If the Buy-and-Holders got something wrong back in the 1960s when they were puttiing their strategy together and we permit honest posting, that is going to come out in the discussions and we are all going to learn from them.

No death threats. No unjustified board bannings. No extortion. No thousands of acts of defamation. None of the Goon garbage that has been holding us all back for 20 years now. None of that should ever happen. You have one point of view re how stock investing works, I have another. All. good. That’s what makes for a good DISCUSSION. A good civil, reasoned, friendly, respectful discussion.

That’s where I am coming from, Anon. I don’t agree with you re a few things. But I don’t hate you. I am happy to talk things over with you from time to time. And with others. Some who will no doubt agree with you. Some who will agree with me.

And I naturally wish all of those people the best that life has to offer a person regardless of what investment strategy they elect to follow.

Rob