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

Some of us know how stock investing works.  Unfortunately, broke market timers still haven’t figured it out.  Your assessment has a 20+ year track record of failure.

And there’s zero chance that you could ever learn anything new? All of the peer-reviewed research that we would ever need was published prior to the day the Buy-and-Hold strategy was developed?

I don’t buy it, Anonymous. I believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research showing that valuations affect long-term returns was something new. I believe that we need to incorporate that research into our thinking. Take Buy-and-Hold and add the last 44 years of peer-reviewed research and you have Valuation-Informed Indexing.

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 you don’t. You just give your opinion on what one guy said. Shiller has even said that you should not time the market with CAPE.

No one with half a brain would take financial advice from a broke guy.

Shiller made an offhand comment once that could reasonably be interpreted in the way in which you are interpreting it. But that interpretation goes against the thrust of his entire life’s work. So I don’t think that’s what he was saying.

But I would sure like to hear him explore the question in depth. In everyone were thinking clearly, everyone on the planet would want that. Shiller was awarded a Nobel prize for his research. I have asked you scores of times to identify ways in which you have changed how you invest because of what you learned from Shiller’s research. You have never responded. That’s scary. That’s a problem.

Shiller added to our knowledge of this subject IN SOME WAY. What is it? What did he do? I think he showed that valuations affect long-term returns, If you think something different, you should be able to say what that different belief is. You can’t. You just want people to pretend that Shiller’s research doesn’t exist because Buy-and-Hold came first and, if we all pretend that Shiller’s research doesn’t exist, Buy-and-Hold can continue.

I want to get to the bottom of this, I want to open every site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research. There’s nothing bad that can come from discussing the research. That’s how we learn.

We didn’t know that valuations affect long-term returns when the Buy-and-Hold strategy was being developed. How does knowing that change things? I think it changes things in a very big and very positive way. I think we need to discuss it. Lots of people won’t talk unless we knock off the funny business that we have seen coming from the Buy-and-Hold side of the table for 23 years now. We need to bring that awful stuff to a full and complete stop. I am not able to imagine any possible downside.

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:

Shiller merely reinforced what we already knew.  He told us that we should not try to time the market with CAPE.  Too bad you didn’t listen.

Shiller published a paper in 1996 saying that investors who stuck with their high stock allocations despite the sky-high valuations of the day would live to regret it within 10 years. That sounds like an endorsement of market timing to me.

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 many studies are part of your review of the last 43 years of peer-reviewed research? What is the list of studies that you want discussed on every discussion board? Why 43 years? What is special about 43 years? What about 50 years, or 60 years?

If you needed a critical surgery, would you want the doctor to only look at one study or should he look at all available studies to determine what technique should be followed?

We certainly should be looking at every study that is available to us. The Buy-and-Holders do not say that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is in error. That’s not even a claim that is on the table. So it should be open to discussion.

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 read titles, but not the content of the books.  Got it.

The title tells the story, Anonymous.

I’m in favor of going far beyond that. I’m in favor of opening every site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research. Once we do that, we will be creating a mountain of powerful investment advice insights every day.It’ll be like having a new book every day. I’m all for it.

But the title tells the story in a clear, concise way. If irrational exuberance is a real thing, the safe withdrawal rate cannot possibly be the same number at all times. It’s got to be a lot lower at times when irrational exuberance is out of control than it is when irrational exuberance is at reasonable levels. I think it’s a real 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;

I read Shiller’s book.  It doesn’t say anything about market timing. It doesn’t say anything about Greaney’s study.  It doesn’t say anything about broken laws.  It doesn’t say anything about getting a $500 million windfall. Same goes for every publication by Wade Pfau.  It seems that only Rob Bennett says these things.  Hhhhhmmmmmmmmm……..

Do you happen to recall the title of Shiller’s book?

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:

And we don’t think your posts are honest.  Like I said, you can post what you want on your website and other board owners do not have to allow you to spread your lies on their websites.

It’s fraud. There were people at the Motley Fool board who were using the Greaney retirement study to plan their retirement. Do you think it would have been better if I had kept it zipped re the error in it (it lacks a valuation adjustment)?

If Greaney were honest, he would want people to know about the dangers of his study. If he cared about the people who make use of his study, he would want to correct the error before it hurts more people.

If we all were capable of thinking clearly about these matters, there wouldn’t be one dissenting voice to what I am saying here. The core issue in dispute in our discussions is whether investors are 100 percent rational (they would need to be for the market to be efficient, which was the assumption of the people who developed Buy-and-Hold) or highly emotional (they would need to be for irrational exuberance to be a real thing). The fact that there is even one person who believes that it is okay that Greaney failed to correct his study within 24 hours of the moment he learned of the error he made in it shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Shiller was right to posit that investors are at times highly emotional. We wouldn’t have seen any of the abusive or criminal behavior that we have seen from you Goons if investors were 100 percent rational.

I would permit honest posting re the peer-reviewed research. At every site. We’re obviously not there yet. But I think we are close.

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:

Your opinions of Shiller’s work are just that.  Shiller has never agreed with you and has never endorsed VII.  In fact, he has said just the opposite. He specifically told you and everyone else not to time the market with CAPE.  You wouldn’t listen and that is why you are broke.

The title of Shiller’s book is “Irrational Exuberance.”

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:

Shiller does not say what you say.  You throw his name around because you think it somehow gives you credibility.  It does not. It is Shiller’s work.  Not your work.  If there is some kind of interpretation to be had, then it is up to Shiller to do so.  Meanwhile, you are free to do your own research and write your own papers and make your own conclusions.  Stop hijacking what someone else has done in order to spin it top further your agenda.

I say that Shiller says that valuations affect long-term returns. I say that Shiller believes that there is a phenomenon in the stock buying process that he calls “irrational exuberance.”

I also say that all of us (very much including Shiller himself) should be talking about the far-reaching how-to implications of his amazing research at every discussion board and blog, without a single exception. The core aim of the entire 22-year project is to make that happen. What I say is relatively inconsequential. What matter is what thousands and thousands of people say. We are not hearing those thousands and thousands of people today because they fear what you Goons will do to them if they express their sincere thoughts. That needs to change.

I have a funny feelings that I will not help the cause of it changing by agreeing to censor myself re the error in the Greaney retirement study (it lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins).

Rob