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 your definition is only your opinion of what one guy said in a publication from 44 years ago and nothing else.  Got it.

Do you have a different opinion of how Shiller changed our understanding of stock investing? He was awarded a Nobel prize. He must have showed something of significance.

 

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

All your crash predictions failed.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

I have never made any precise crash predictions. I have never said “prices will crash on Day X or in Month X or in Year X.” I call that the guessing game approach to market timing. I don’t believe that it can be done. I am in complete agreement with the Buy-and-Holders re that one.

I have put forward general time frames in which I said I believed the price crash would come. Those predictions did indeed fail. Those predictions were based on what has happened in the historical record. In recent history, prices have remained high longer than than they did at any earlier time in history. We are in uncharted waters. No one could have anticipated that.

I don’t think it follows that I don’t know what I’m talking about. My claim that the Greaney retirement study lacks a valuation adjustment has stood the test of time. I feel more confident re that one today than I did on the morning of May 13, 2002. Because we have not yet seen a crash (other than the 2008 crash, which only lasted for about 12 months), Greaney’s study has not yet caused failed retirements. But it will in the event that stocks continue to perform in tjhe future anything at all as they always have in the past.

I don’t think it would be proper to wait until people have suffered failed retirements to point out the error in the study. I think that the time to do that was the day when the error was identified. I actually waited a number of years because I was afraid of what Greaney would do to me and to the Motley Fool discussion board. I knew about the error on the first occasions on which I looked at the study (I knew from reading Bogle’s book that the safe withdrawal rate changes with changes in valuations levels). I was the first, though, to point out the error in a public way. I am proud of that. I didn’t get that one wrong.

And it’s important. Getting the numbers right in retirement studies is important.

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 a millionaire, you don’t have thousands posting and VII failed.  It has been 2 decades of failure.  What more do we need to see?

You need either to point to the page in the Greaney retirement study containing a valuation adjustment or join me in insisting that he correct the error immediately.

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:

Because it didn’t need a correction ( but you know that).  Don’t like it?  Then do your own study.  No one is stopping you.

It doesn’t contain a valuation adjustment, Anonymous. The evidence for that is overwhelming. It shouldn’t take 23 years to settle the matter.

If Buy-and-Hold were a real thing, there wouldn’t be any controversy re the matter. The primary effect of Buy-and-Hold is to take people’s attention away from the most important factor affecting long-term stock investing success — valuations.

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 did that windfall plan work you for you?  How many checks have come in so far?

There have not been any financial checks. But there is compensation in the form of good feeling every night when I go to sleep and can reflect that I worked up the courage to point out the error in the Greaney retirement study and that I have been arguing for 23 years that as a nation of people we need to open every site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research, that we need to advance in our understanding of how stock investing works from where it stood in the pre-Shiller years.

I don’t like the nasty stuff. Not one bit. I have spoken out in opposition to it on thousands of occasions. But what’s the alternative to posting honestly re the research (which is what brings on the nasty stuff)? To say that I now believe that the Greaney study contains a valuation adjustment after all? Is that going to solve the problem?

That’s what caused the problem. The normal things is to discuss research once it is published. Pretending that Shiller’s research doesn’t exist is what causes the problem. Buy-and-Hold is what sells. Valuation-Informed Indexing is what works. If we want to avoid future Buy-and-Hold Crises, we need to make the shift from what sells to what works. Or so Rob Bennett sincerely believes, in any event. you know?

I have not received financial compensation for pointing out the error in the Graney retirement study. THAT’S THE PROBLEM. Discovering errors in retirement studies is a good thing. We should celebrate people working up the courage to point out such errors. The compensation that I received is knowing in my heart that I did not sell out my fellow community members. I would like to receive financial compensation as well. That would be ideal. But never for one second have I considered giving up the good feelings that comes from standing up for my fellow community members in exchange for obtaining the financial compensation available to those who pretend that Shiller’s research does not exist. Yucko, you know?

It’s not all about turning a quick buck. Not in my view. You need to give some consideration to what happens to the people who hear the dangerous advice and are taken in by it. That’s how it is done in every field other than the investment advice field. The way it is done in every other field is what works, in my sincere opinion.

I hope that helps a tiny bit.

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 have no reason to believe that Reddit would be any different. Thanks but no thanks.”

You want there to be websites that allow posting about valuation based market timing. There are no bans on that subject at Reddit. But you won’t post there because a percentage of the people will disagree with you.

Let me speak
OK you can speak
I don’t want to speak because people will disagree with me.

There are no official bans on honest posting anywhere. There are practical bans because of the intimidation effect of the Goon tactics and because of the complacency of the Normals that permits it to continue.

I enjoy disagreement that is expressed in civil ways. I learn from it. But I believe that the laws that apply in every field of human endeavor other than the investment advice field to protect us from the ugly Goon tactics are good and necessary laws. When we discard those laws, we discard what makes us human.

I believe that we will find our way to the other side. I can’t guarantee it. But I believe it. I believe that we are in a fundamental sense a good people.

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 approximately none so far.

There’s no large site today that permits honest posting re the last 44 years of peer-reviewed research. If there were, I would be posting there.

There are lots of places that permit honest posting in their published rules. But there are not any that will protect those posting honestly from the sorts of individuals who have posted in a”defensea” of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney.

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 years has it been since you have had an actual conversation with anyone from the investment community?

There is a guy from California who liked my Value Wslk columns. He used to write to me to comment on them on a fairly regular basis.

Outside of that, it’s been a long, long time. Probably since Wade Pfau flipped, which was the same time at which I was banned from Bogleheads.

There shouldn’t be any isolation whatsoever for those who believe that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research. You’re trying to make some negative point by bringing this up. And of course it’s true that the isolation is very painful for me. I certainly don’t say different. But I want to end that. I want to see everyone who believes that Shiller’s research is legitimate participating at every site with no worries whatsoever that they will encounter any sort of abusiveness so that we all can learn from them. The extreme isolation that you are referring to just makes me feel all the stronger that we need to open every site to honest posting re the peer-reviewed research. It shows how messed-up things have gotten in the Buy-and-Hold Era. I think we draw opposite sorts of conclusions from the phenomenon to which you are referring.

If everyone who believes that Shiller’s research is legitimate had insisted on his or her right to post honestly going back to the first day, I obviously would have not run into any trouble when I pointed out the error in the Greaney study. In all likelihood, someone would have pointed it out long before I came on the scene. So it seems clear to me that living in fear is not the answer. It’s too many people living in fear that caused this crazy, dangerous situation. So I make an effort not to do that.

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 says there is criminal behavior?  Only you.  Funny thing is that it is only you making all these claims on every topic and no one with any credibility will back you up.  So it either the largest conspiracy to ever occur in the history of the world……….or Rob Bennett is wrong and making all of this up.  Which is most likely?

It’s certainly an exceedingly strange set of circumstances. I give you that one. Lots of people with lots of credibility have backed me up. That’s never been a problem. But, if we want to hear those people speak up in clear and complete and direct terms, we need to make them feel safe doing so. So we need to bring the intimidation stuff to a full and complete stop. I’ve been saying that since the first day. The short way of saying it is that we need to apply the same laws in the investment advice field that we already apply in every field of life endeavor outside of the investment advice field.

I call it a conspiracy of ignorance. We did not know how stock investing worked prior to the publication of Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research in 1981, So there was no conspiracy prior to that. And we have not had the discussions needed for us to come to terms with the far-reaching how-to implications of Shiller’s findings until this day. So I don’t think it is possible to say precisely how much of a conspiracy there is. There are lots of people who want to speak up. Nothing could be more clear. There have been lots of intimidation tactics employed to stop them from doing so. That’s also super clear. The cover-up has been successful in the sense that Buy-and-Hold is still heavily promoted today and the Greaney retirement study has not been corrected. But I certainly do not believe that all of the people who promote Buy-and-Hold are knowingly participating in a conspiracy. The vast majority believe in it. So I think we need to be careful how we state things.

Is Bill Berntein participating in a conspiracy. He said as clearly as it can be said that the safe withdrawal rate at the top of the bubble was 2 percent. So he believed that the Greaney study is in error.So on the most important question he has been working to expose the conspiracy for 22 years now. But he was awful quiet about the need for Greaney to correct his study while the discussions were raging at Bogleheads In that sense he helped the conspiracy survive. I cannot say in precise detail what is going on in his mind, What I say is that we need to bring the intimidation tactics to a full and complete stop so that he will feel free to speak his mind openly and we will all learn the details. That benefits everyone. I am not able to imagine any possible downside.

It’s a bad scene in lots of ways, But it’s also a good scene in that this is the biggest advance in our understanding of how stock investing works in the history of personal finance. Shiller waan’t awarded a Nobel prize because he has a nice haircut. So I vote for opening every site to honest posting. It’s true, though, that the longer the cover-up continues, the less comfortable people feel about speaking up. The 43-years cover up looks really, really, really bad. That’s what I always say that we need to bring it to an end by the close of business today. Letting it continue for another day just makes things that much worse.

The set of laws that applies in every other field is a good set of laws. It works. We need to decide as a nation of people to apply that good set of laws in the investment advice field as well. That’s where I’m coming from. I sincerely believe that the Greaney retirement study lacks a valuation adjustment. I should be permitted to say that wherever I please. It should not be a controversial question.

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:

“It’s about letting people know that the Greaney retirement study lacks a valuation adjustment.”

Is there anyone who thinks the Greaney study does contain a valuation adjustment?

That’s a good question.

There’s no one who has looked for one and found one. People don’t think it through.

Greaney says that a 4 percent withdrawal has always worked. That’s an accurate statement. Then he concludes that a 4 percent withdrawal is safe. That doesn’t follow. At times when valuations were high, a 4 percent withdrawal BARELY worked. It worked because there was a lucky returns sequence, not because that is a safe withdrawal rate for retirements that begin at times of high valuations. The claim is a false one. But it sounds PLAUSIBLE to people who haven’t thought things through carefully.

I argued that we should think things through carefully. When people did that, they began to lose confidence in the claims of the Greaney study. Greaney ddin’t like that. So he went into freak-out mode.

No one truly believes that Greaney included a valuation adjustment in his study. And no one truly believes that valuation-based market timing is not 100 percent required for every investor. There’s a tension between two desires possessed by every investor. We all want to invest rationally, for obvious reasons. And we all want to get something for nothing because that’s a universal human weakness. Buy-and-Hold serves the second desire; that’s why it is so popular. Valuation-Informed Indexing serves the first desire; that’s why it works in the long term.

I want to tell people what works. That makes me a threat to those who want to push what sells. Is it all about turning a quick buck? Or should there be some concern about what happens to the lives of the people who follow the investment strategies that do the best job of turning a quick buck?

I asked a question. Should we be looking at valuations when we calculate the safe withdrawal rate? Lots of community members thanked me profusely for starting the most exciting discussion ever held in the history of that board. The answer to the question was a resounding “yes!” Of course we should be taking valuations into consideration. We just hadn’t done it until then because people were afraid to invite Greaney’s wrath by doing so. No one was asking the question before I raised it.

It’s a con, Evidence. A lot of cons make no sense once you’ve see through them. What usually happens with a con is that you fall for something stupid because you very much want to fall for it. There’s deception on the part of the person working the con. But the bigger factor is the self-deception of the people who long to believe in the con. Anyone could have checked the Greaney study and saw that it lacked a valuation adjustment. But most people didn’t want to know. They wanted to believe the nonsense. By raising the question, I made it very hard or impossible for them to remain in the dark.

That’s what I wanted to do. Greaney and you want people to remain in the dark. We are working at cross purposes.

Rob