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

“ He should address questions relating to the implications of his ideas.”

Why does he need to answer YOUR questions? If he, or anyone else, is asked a question, why is there an obligation to answer? You could have hundreds of thousands of people asking different questions. Why does he owe Rob Bennett an answer? Why does Shiller have to comment on your make believe assumption that he is threatened by buy and hold goons?

Shiller predicted the 2008 economic crisis in his book, which was published in 2000. Had the entire internet been open to honest posting at that time, we could have avoided that economic crisis. Investors obviously want to do what is in their best interest. Shiller’s research shows that it is in their best interest always to engage in long-term market timing (price discipline). When we all gain the freedom to talk about that, stock prices become self-regulating. From that point forward, we could never again see the insane price levels that caused that economic crisis.

So hundreds of thousands of businesses would not have gone under. And millions of workers would not have been thrown out of their jobs. And we would not have seen the political frictions that remain a problem to this day. It is Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research that showed us the path to avoiding all that. And you are asking why he would want to help out? Are you joking? The reason why he did the research was to help out. Of course he wants to see millions of people benefit from it. The question is absurd.

Why did Martin Luther King do what he did? Why did millions of people do what they could to follow in his footsteps? Why do people revere the man to this day? Caring for others is part of human nature, Anonymous. We are not all Goons.

The full truth is that even you Goons have a tiny part of that within you. Had Shiller gone public with his sincere views on safe withdrawal rates back when he published his book, you Goons would not have been able to spend the last 18 years of your lives engaging in criminal acts aimed at destroying millions of lives. Can you honestly say that you wouldn’t feel a lot better about yourselves today had Shiller played it that way? I sure think you would.

The desire to help other humans is part of what makes us human ourselves. That will never change. I don’t care how much money the promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies puts in the pockets of our Wall Street Con Men friends. Our Wall Street Con Men would deep down inside like to gain the freedom to do honest work in their chosen profession. I am sure. That is why you see people like William Bernstein sneaking honest statements about safe withdrawal rates in their books. Most of the people who work in this field are engaging in as much honest work as they think they can get away with. They would love to feel that they could get away with more. And having Shiller speaking out clearly on all sorts of issues would help them do that.

Shiller is one of the humans. He has a natural desire to help the other humans. That’s why he did the research that led to him being awarded a Nobel prize. And that is why he would like to feel free to talk clearly about the far-reaching implications of that research at every place at which he speaks on investment-related topics.

That was an easy one. I mean — Holy moly!

Please take good care, my dear Goon friend.

People Person (Even When The People in Question Are Goons!) Rob

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

“It shows how threatening Shiller’s research findings are to Buy-and-Holders, Anonymous.”

Articles by Shiller have plenty of comments and following. It is specifically your posts that do not. Thus, your comment is not valid.

If Shiller put forward a statement that “The Buy-and-Hold retirement studies are in error and should be corrected within 24 hours because of the harm that they will otherwise do to lots of people,” he would get the same reaction that I have gotten. It is not that it is Rob Bennett saying the things that I say that causes Buy-and-Holders to lose their freakin’ minds, it is the content of the message.

If Shiller is right that valuations affect long-term returns, there is zero chance that the safe withdrawal rate is the same number at all valuation levels. By not saying that, he stays out of trouble. But is that a good thing for the millions of people who have used the discredited retirement studies to plan their retirements? It’s not. All of us who believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research should be speaking up.

The Buy-and-Holders need to get over the fact that 39 years ago research was published showing that they had made a mistake in thinking that the market is efficient. That’s the bottom line here. We are not helping our Buy-and-Hold friends by keeping quiet. We are hurting them. We are making things worse by permitting more time to pass without seeing a correction.

That’s my sincere take, Anonymous.

I naturally wish you all good things.

Buy-and-Hold Critic (and True Friend!) 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:

“ It has always worked.”

That is all you needed to say.

“ People need to know that. A failed retirement is a serious life setback. “

Totally agree. You are a good example of a failed retirement. You should be telling people where you went wrong, so that they don’t repeat your errors. That would be offering true value to your readers versus all this nonsense you have been doing up to this point.

“ I had become friends with a lot of the people who participated in the Motley Fool community.”

What friends? You chased everyone away.

“That is all you needed to say.”

No. If all that I had ever said was “it has always worked,” there never would have been any controversy. It was the stuff that I said after that that got me banned. When I say that we need to open every site to honest posting, it;’s the stuff that I said after that that I am talking about. We need to be warning people about the dangers of the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies. Saying “it has always worked” doesn’t do the job. It is not even a remotely close call.

“What friends? You chased everyone away.”

This is half true and half false.

The single biggest thing that drove people away was the abusive posting by you Goons. That sickened people.

There were hundreds of people who said that my famous post of the morning of May 13, 2002, started the most exciting debate ever held at the board. I certainly didn’t drive those people away. I gave those people exactly what they were looking for at that board.

But there were indeed a number of people who didn’t enjoy hearing what I had to say. I don’t mean just Goons. The Goons hate me with a burning hate. But there were a number of non-hater Normals who did not enjoy hearing what I had to say. That’s not because I said anything inappropriate or that I said what I said in an inappropriate way. That’s because there had never heard what I was saying from anyone else and because I was telling them that it was going to take them longer to be prepared to begin their retirements than they had come to believe was the case by listening to others.

It is not the job of people working in this field just to pump out a lot of happy talk. Yes, that makes you popular, and, yes, that makes you rich. But planning one’s retirement is a serious business. Those who do not take the job seriously are not our friends even if they are telling us what we want to hear. There comes a time when you have to tell people the truth even if it hurts them a bit for them to hear it.

Greaney’s retirement study lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. I checked numerous times before I put forward that famous post of May 13, 2002. I have noticed that in the 18 years since not one time has Greaney put forward a screen shot showing where the valuation adjustment is in the study, I cannot help but wonder if that is because I was right in what I said in my famous post of the May 13, 2002, there really is no valuation adjustment in the study.

The answer re the people who got upset by the true thing that I said is not for me to stop posting honestly. The answer is for everyone who works in this field to begin posting honestly re what the last 39 years of peer-reviewed research teaches us all about how stock investing works in this field, When that happens, no one will be surprised or upset when someone like me points out that the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies get the numbers wildly wrong.

If we are not going to permit the safe withdrawal rate to be calculated properly, we should just not bother calculating it at all. Inaccurate calculations ultimately do more harm than good. I don’t think that Buy-and-Hold started out as a scam. But that is what it is today. Prior to 1981, it was just a mistake that was made because all of the research needed to know the realities had not yet been published, Today, Buy-and-Hold is a scam. The fact that the Buy-and-Holders got the numbers wrong is a small thing today. The much bigger problem today is that, because the Buy-and-Holders do not want people to know about the 39-year cover-up of their error, they have engaged in criminal behavior to stop anyone else from reporting accurate numbers. Not good.

My sincere take.

Accurate Calculating (But Hopeful That One of His Friends Will Let Him Know If This Ever Turns Out Not to Be the Case!) 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:

Sorry, but Shiller says you are wrong. You just haven’t listened. He has said this before. Larry Swedroe also said you were wrong back in 2018:

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2018/04/02/beware-of-the-misinterpretations-of-the-cape-ratio

You didn’t listen to him either.

Wade Pfau said you were wrong about John Greaney. He wrote whole article on this back in 2010. You ignored Wade as well.

I guess that is why The New York Times won’t write a story on you. They are worried that all these facts will come up and that they will then be blamed for fake news.

If you run a search for Google on the question “What is Modern Portfolio Theory?”, the following words will appear on your computer screen:

What is the portfolio theory assumption?
The Portfolio Theory of Markowitz is based on the following assumptions: (1) Investors are rational and behave in a manner as to maximise their utility with a given level of income or money. (2) Investors have free access to fair and correct information on the returns and risk.

Shiller discredited the premise of Modern Portfolio Theory when he published research showing that investors are NOT rational, that they are at times highly emotional and that they at times create lots of irrational exuberance in stock prices. This is why he was awarded a Nobel prize.

Had we all been thinking clearly back in 1981 when he did that, we would have launched a national debate on the far-reaching implications of Shiller’s research. Unfortunately, we are humans. We are flawed creatures. We were not expecting Shiller’s findings. We were shocked by them. We experienced cognitive dissonance re them. We just kept on recommending Buy-and-Hold strategies and suggesting that they were supported by the peer-reviewed research even though that was no longer the case. As the years passed, it got harder and harder to come clean because the harm done by the cover-up grew larger and larger.

None of the people you mention truly believe that John Greaney included a valuation adjustment in the retirement study posted at his web site. Robert Shiller doesn’t believe that, Larry Swedroe doesn’t believe that, Wade Pfau doesn’t believe that, the editor of the New York Times doesn’t believe that. Freakin’ John Greaney himself doesn’t truly believe that. If Greaney truly believed that he had included a valuation adjustment in his study, we never would have seen a single death threat or a single demand for a single unjustified board banning or a single act of defamation or a single threat to get a single academic researcher fired from a single job. I mean, come on.

So if everyone gets it that the Greaney study is in error, how is it that 18 years have passed since I advanced my famous post and the study has not been corrected to this day?

Getting the numbers right in retirement studies is what investment analysis is all about. If all of these people (and everyone else who works in this field) acknowledges that the Greaney retirement study and indeed all Buy-and-Hold retirement studies need to be corrected, where is it going to stop? The entire Modern Portfolio Theory will need to be corrected. Which means that every textbook in this field will need to be corrected. And every article written about stock investing over the last 39 years will need to be corrected. Modern Portfolio Theory is the language that people in this field speak and Shiller was awarded a Nobel prize for showing that that language is flawed in a very serious way.

So people go along to get along.

And knowledge does not advance.

And investors get hurt.

And we move ever closer to the next economic crisis.

Not this boy, you know?

If Greaney’s study truly does not include a valuation adjustment, it should have been corrected within 24 hours of the moment when he learned of the error. And we then should have moved on to correcting everything else that those who believe in Modern Portfolio Theory got wrong. The idea of being an “expert” is endeavoring to get things right, not deliberately getting them wrong.

That’s my sincere take, Anonymous. I think that everyone in this field should be endeavoring to get things right. I do that. And I encourage all others to do that. I say that we all need to stand up to you Goons when you threaten us so that we can get things back on track.

People do not want to see their loved ones threatened. People do not want to see their careers destroyed. So it takes a good bit of courage today to speak up about this stuff. But I believe that more people will work up the courage in the days following the next price crash, when they will be able to see how much human misery has been caused by the cover-up.

We’ll see, you know?

I wish you the best of luck with it, in any event. I hope that that helps at least a tiny bit.

My best wishes to you and yours.

Theory Correcting 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 read minds? If not, you have no clue as to what Shiller thinks. Making comments beyond what he actually said is just making things up.

That’s not so.

All learning is achieved building-block style. Someone develops an insight and shares it with his fellow humans. The fellow humans then put their own brains to work applying the insight in hundreds and hundreds of contexts that the person who developed the insight did not consider. This is a magical process. This process permits the benefits of that first insight to stretch onward and onward and onward.

Shiller was not awarded a Nobel prize because he came up with one tiny little insight. Doing that might have gotten him an article somewhere but not a Nobel prize. Shiller’s work is “revolutionary” (this word appears in the subtitle of Shiller’s book). It changes the fundamentals of our understanding of how stock investing works. It puts every single strategic question that has ever been considered in the investing advice field in a new light.

Those who fail to explore the far-reaching implications of Shiller’s work are insulting him. Not directly but implicitly. It is standard operating procedure in our culture to explore the far-reaching implications of revolutionary insights. So that’s what I do re Shiller’s breakthrough showing that the market is not efficient (rational) but that in fact valuations affect long-term returns (meaning that market timing is 100 percent required for those who want to maintain a constant risk profile over time). The suggestion of a decision not to explore the implications of Shiller’s amazing work is that his work is not such a big deal. Not this boy, you know? If Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research, it is the biggest deal possible. I have devoted 18 years of my life to exploring the far-reaching implications of Shiller’s work and I offer precisely zero apologies for doing so.

If valuations affect long-term returns, there is precisely zero chance that the safe withdrawal rate is the same number at all times. If valuations affect long-term returns, stock investing risk is not constant but variable. The safe withdrawal rate is a risk assessment tool. If risk is variable, that number must change with changes in valuations. Saying that is like saying that two plus two equals four, It is as basic as basic gets.

The question that people should be asking is — Why isn’t there universal agreement that the safe withdrawal rate is a number that changes with changes in valuation levels? Why didn’t Shiller include a statement saying that in his book?

The answer to that one is that what Shiller does is science and science advances knowledge. Most of the people who work in this field and make mountains of money doing it are not scientists. They see a huge marketing edge in claiming that their advice is rooted in science. But they see a huge marketing negative in having to admit mistakes. Science is a process of learning new things. When the science seemed to support Buy-and-Hold, these people jumped on Buy-and-Hold. But when the science changed (with the publication of Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research in 1981), keeping up with the science became a marketing negative. If our Wall Street Con Men friends were going to keep up with the science, they would have had to acknowledge the far-reaching implications of Shiller’s work, they would have had to say the words “I” and “Was’ and “Wrong.” They saw a financial incentive in ignoring Shiller. And so we are where we are today.

I see a financial advantage in taking us all to a better place. And I of course believe that our Wall Street Con Men friends would prefer that better place themselves once they got to live in it. So I made a decision back in May 2000 to post honestly re these matters and I have held firmly to that ever since. I have never had occasion to doubt that one. I have enjoyed hundreds of amazing learning experiences as a result of working up the courage to advance the Post Heard ‘Round the World on the morning of May 13, 2002. I bless the Creator (or Fate or Evolution, or whatever word you want to use to refer to the great, cosmic force that oversees the lives of the humans) for giving me the courage to stand up to The Greaney Monster on that day.

My sincere take.

And my best and warmest wishes.

Implication Exploring (and Unapologetic 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:

Anonymous was right. All of the pressures on the market over the next decade will be blamed (rightly so) on Covid-19. There won’t be any New York Times article on you and there won’t be any $500 million windfall.

You may be right. I don’t think so. But it is possible.

What you are saying is that progress is impossible. Once humans come to believe in something, that’s the end of the story. There is never any consideration of new ideas. If we happen to make a mistake in our initial efforts to understand something, then that mistake will continue to do us harm until the end of time.

I find that idea depressing. If it is not possible for us ever to learn anything about how stock investing works that we did not know in 1980, why do we still have people going to school to earn Ph.D.’s in Economics? Why not just close the schools on the grounds that we knew everything that we would ever need to know in 1980?

I think that we have learned important things over the course of the past 39 years. So I think that we can do better. And I know that I am not the only person who believes that. If everyone agreed that we can never learn anything that we did not know in 1980, Shiller would not have been awarded a Nobel prize. The fact that we awarded him a Nobel prize shows that we see value in his work.

It’s only 10 percent of us today. We are not getting much benefit from Shiller’s amazing research because only 10 percent of us buy in to it today. That part is unfortunate. But I sure don’t see how I am going to make that situation better by agreeing to say that Greaney’s study contains a valuation adjustment. It seems to me to be a much more positive approach for me to continue to post honestly. I think that we will be able to get some more people to join the effort after a massive price crash because people will be less complacent then and more open to hearing about new ideas.

I sure hope that that is what happens. We’ll see.

Hopeful 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 really not understanding what Scott Burns said to you. It was not a complement. You somehow see yourself and you message as important, when that is not the case.

I certainly don’t think that Scott Burns was trying to compliment me. He was in pain. He saw that I had made a valid point. He also saw that it was his job to evaluate that point and either endorse it or criticize it. He also saw that, if he endorsed it, his own career would suffer. He also saw that there were no legitimate grounds on which to criticize it. He was trapped. His response was to lash out in an irrational way. He insulted me. He was not able to come up with any case for insulting me. He just advanced the insult and then refused to talk about it.

He preserved his career. That was his aim and he achieved that aim. But he did it at the price of sacrificing his rational mind. What he said made no sense. If what I said (that the Greaney retirement study lacked an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins) is so, that’s a very big deal. Millions of people have used the Trinity study (on which the Greaney study was based) to plan their retirements. If that study is in error, then millions of people’s financial lives have been placed in grave jeopardy and it is Scott Burns’ job to help those people by publicly exposing that error. By putting forward the nonsense insult, Scott protected his career. But he paid the price of acting in an irrational way that compromised his personal integrity. I think he paid too big a price for the career rewards that he obtained. But that is of course a personal choice that we all need to make for ourselves.

The message that I am putting forward is the most important message before this country today. Our economic system cannot survive is we do not find some means of getting honest and accurate investment advice out to the millions of people who desire it and need it. That’s absolutely imperative. There is no more important work being done today than the work that I am doing.

That is of course the reason why it is so hard. If it were not hard work to tell the truth about safe withdrawal rates and about scores of other critically important investment-related topics, everyone would be doing it and the reaction to my May 13, 2002, post would have been “of course Greaney’s study is in error, it needs to be corrected within 24 hours.” That was not the universal reaction to the painfully obvious point that I made. That’s why we are still here.

The puzzle is — WHY was that not the universal reaction?

The answer is that there had already been a 21-year cover-up of the obvious implications of Shiller’s peer-reviewed research on the day that I put forward that post. The difficulty in giving the obvious response to my post was not that there was anything tricky or questionable in what I said. The difficulty was the awareness of the 21-year cover-up. This field is run by wealthy and powerful and well-connected people. Scott Burns is not the only human who thinks twice before taking on lots of wealthy and powerful and well-connected people. If those people had acknowledged their error when it was first revealed to them (in 1981), Greaney would never have made the error in the first place. So there would have been no issue.

Those people did not acknowledge their error when it was pointed out to them. We are all today living the consequences of their unfortunate choice. Scott Burns decided that it was not his problem, that someone else would have to take on all these wealthy and powerful and well-connected people. I made the other choice. I don’t think that we can duck this one indefinitely. If Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research, the now 39-year cover-up will someday cause another economic crisis, perhaps another Great Depression. I love my country. I cannot live with having a decision to duck that one on my conscience. So I have made a decision to do what I can to get the word out.

Which, ironically enough, is what I think our Wall Street Con Men friends themselves would want me to do if they were thinking clearly re these matters. Our Wall Street Con Men friends have blocked out thinking about how much human suffering their continued cover-up is likely to cause because they could not live with their decision if they permitted their minds to work properly in assessing it. So even our Wall Street Con Men friends will be thanking me for my choice when we all get to the other side of The Big Black Mountain.

Or so Rob Bennett sincerely believes, in any event, you know?

I naturally wish you all good things, my dear Goon friend.

Wall Street Con Men Ally 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:

Who threatened Dr. Bernstein? Why do you call him a liar, just like you call Wade Pfau a liar and Robert Shiller a liar? If they are lying about this stuff, then that makes everything else suspect. If so, there is no need to listen to anyone but you, right Rob?

When I say that these people are liars, I make it a point to note that that is the human condition — we are ALL liars. And I make it a point to include myself in the group suffering from that human condition. I knew that Greaney’s study lacked a valuations adjustment for three years before I worked up the courage to tell the truth about it.

It’s good to be at least a tiny bit skeptical about everything you hear. I can go along with that much, But we need to know stuff. So we do need to hear people out. I believe that the answer is to permit honest posting from everyone. Then you hear the claims but you also hear challenges to the claims. That’s perfect. That’s the path to a great learning experience.

What threatened Bernstein was the “hostile atmosphere” at the Bogleheads Forum that Wade Pfau often referred to. The idea that market timing is not required was the one huge error that the Buy-and-Holders made. It was discovered in 1981. The defensiveness today is not just over the error itself, it is over the 39-year cover-up. So the atmosphere there is very, very, very, very hostile to discussions of the far-reaching implications of Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research.

Just about everybody would prefer to be doing honest work. If the Buy-and-Holders had never said that timing was not required before Shiller came along. we all would have been Valuation-Informed Indexers from 1981 forward. But that is not the way the history of the thing played out. As a society we got it wrong before we got it right. So getting it right has always required saying the words “I” and “Was” and “Wrong.” That’s been the hold-up for all of us for 39 years now.

The thing that threatens Bernstein is the same thing that threatened me for the three years before I worked up the courage to point out the error in Greaney’s study. He wants to be popular. He wants to be able to make a living. He does not want to see his loved ones killed. These are all perfectly normal things.

The one mistake that the Buy-and-Holders made was no small thing. If the most important thing in stock investing is that we are all always sure to practice market timing and the Buy-and-Holders suggested that market timing might not be required, how do you think it makes them feel for people to learn now that they had it wrong all those years? It makes them feel really, really, really, really bad, Anonymous. And they act accordingly.

That’s what Bernstein is up against. That’s what Wade Pfau is up against. That’s what Michael Kitces is up against. That’s what Robert Shiller is up against. That’s what Rob Bennett is up against. That’s what anyone who has ever thought to put forward an honest, helpful word about how stock investing works is up against. If Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research, everything that anyone said on any investing subject before he published that research in 1981 is wrong. And there are a lot of wealthy and powerful and well-connected people who very, very, very much do not want millions of middle-class investors to find out.

But they have to find out. Our system cannot continue if we do not fine some means to get accurate and honest and research-based investment advice out to people. The safe withdrawal rate is not one number but a number that varies depending on the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. Everyone needs to know. It is a painful process getting the truth out there. But there is no other way to do it than just to do it. The sooner that the truth gets out, the less painful it will be for all of us. So we just need to grit our teeth and rip the bandage off.

My sincere take.

And my best wishes.

Liar (Some of the Time!) 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:

Again, show just one portfolio in which buy and hold didn’t work.

Show me one portfolio in which Buy-and-Hold was employed and I’ll show you one in which it didn’t work.

Asking me to show you one portfolio in which Buy-and-Hold didn’t work is like asking me to show you one case in which someone driving drunk didn’t work.

Driving drunk is always a bad idea. Going with a pure Get Rich Quick investment strategy is always a bad idea.

The aim of investment advice should be to lower risk and increase long-term returns, not the opposite.

My sincere take.

Madcap 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:

Show me the returns on a buy and hold portfolio that did not work.

Wade Pfau and I spent 16 months studying the matter together. He concluded that “Yes, Valuation-Informed Indexing works!” He was amazed that other researchers had not looked at the question before he did because the case that market timing always works is so strong.

Buy-and-Hold does not call for market timing, Anonymous. It does not. Yes, Jack Bogle at one point acknowledged that Valuation-Informed Indexing works. But there are also hundreds of cases in which Bogle advanced suggestions that market timing might not be required for long-term success. Anyone who cares to do a Google search on this question can check this out for himself.

I think it would be fair to say that Bogle was afraid of what Mel Linduaer would do to him if he offered a clear endorsement of Valuation-Informed Indexing instead of the hedged and reluctant endorsement that he put forward instead. A man of Bogle’s accomplishments should not have to live in fear of an internet goon like Mel Linduar. I mean, come on. But that’s the state of the investment advice realm today.

It’s the 39-year cover-up that has caused the problem. If Shiller had published his Nobel-prize-winning research showing how important it is for all investors to practice market timing last week, we all would be talking about it on every site on the internet and we all would be enjoying an amazing learning experience and living richer lives from this point forward. But that’s not how things plated out. Back in the real world, Shiller published that research 39 years ago. So it makes the Buy-and-Holders look bad for anyone to post honestly on any investment-related matter. Why the 39-year cover-up?

It won’t look better for the Buy-and-Holders to make it a 40-year cover-up. The best thing for every single person involved is to open every investing discussion board and blog on the internet to honest posting and just let the U.S. system for handling such matters — a system which PERMITS honest posting in every field of human endeavors other than the investment advice realm — play out.

That’s my sincere take, Anonymous.

Market timing rules!

Research-Oriented Rob