It's okay for you to come to that conclusion for yourself, Mark. It's not okay for you to come to that conclusion on behalf of everyone else who visits here. They get to make up their own minds.

If you go to the home page of my blog and look down the left-hand side, you will see a widget marked “People Are Talking.” There are 45 comments there (with links) from many people, some with well-known names, that find great value in the work we have done in the Retire Early and Indexing communities over the past seven years. Those people have every bit as much a right to comment here as do those who have other viewpoints. They add something important to the discussions and I want to do everything I can to encourage them to participate.

I claim the world is changing so quickly that making investment decisions based on 10 years worth of data is a bad idea. How about a comment directed to that specific sentence?

It's not only for 10 years that we have seen that valuations have always affected long-term returns, Mark. That's been so over the entire historical record, dating back to 1870. The purpose of looking at 10 years of earnings is to mix in both good economic times and poor economic times. It is not the case that Valuation-Informed Indexing has only worked for 10 years. It has been working for 140 years. And there has been lots of change over that time-period.There's been change since the first market opened for business and taking valuations into consideration in setting one's allocation have always been a plus.

Rob

1) Why do ignore my questions and instead substitute answers to 'questions' that were not asked? Please reply directly to this question

2) You have played the 'emotion' card before. It's your favorite. I tried to get a response to from you and you ignored me. I presented my questions in the simplest language I could, albeit using improper terms. You ignore it one again. So how about you stop being emotional and respond to questions? Is that going to happen?

3) I challenged you on using 10 years worth of data and you simply ignore that fact. Question/Comment: My position is that 'valuation-informed' indexing is not viable when you use data that covers 10- years. Your response to that challenge is to ignore it and continue to state your case. That is not productive. So why is 10 years worth of data NOT a ridiculous idea in our rapidly changing world?

4) I agree 'good ideas' are very helpful. What I don't agree with is that your ideas are 'good.' You claim they are good. That is not proof they a e good. the fact that you refuse to answer direct questions tells me you have something to hide.

5) You repeat your thoughts often, but you ignore challenges. You ignore disagreement. You refer to people who disagree with you as emotional. How does any of that contribute to a discussion? How does that suggest that your ideas are still workable in TODAY's market. Please respond as to why those ideas work in TODAY's rapidly changing world?

6) I am going to go out on a limb here: If you once again refuse to reply, I will assume you have nothing to say on the matter and that is an admission that you are just a salesman with a pitch – and nothing worthwhile to sell.

Carl: I put it to YOU. Get you get him to reply? Isn't that the purpose of a back and forth discussion. Question and answer, not question and refusal to reply?

Thanks for hosting the discussion.

I claim the world is changing so quickly that making investment decisions based on 10 years worth of data is a bad idea. How about a comment directed to that specific sentence? Is that asking to much?

Thanks for hosting the blog, Carl.

I can tell you that there have been people who have gotten emotional about Valuation-Informed Indexing at other blogs and at a number of discussion boards. It is the strangest phenomena that I have ever come across in 52 years of walking the planet. Good investing ideas help every single person alive and hurt absolutely no one. But there is something about the investing realm that makes some people view new ideas as a threat. My best attempt at a take on this is that we are all afraid to put our money at risk and yet we all need to choose some investing approach despite our imperfect knowledge, and, once we do, we become emotionally attached to it and have a hard time letting in other possibilities.

There are of course also lots of people who have responded to the new ideas with a great deal of excitement and interest. I like to think that I've learned something from both groups. But it is certainly fair to say that I enjoy my interactions with the positive group more.

My policy is to do the best that I can to answer whatever questions people have while tuning out to the greatest extent possible the negativity. There is one exception to this rule that I believe needs to apply in a limited set of circumstances. There are times when we need to take into consideration the emotional reactions because the emotional reactions are part of the story. If we are not able to have civil discussions of the realities of stock investing, we obviously are limited in what we can learn about this subject in a way that we are not limited when trying to learn about any other area of human endeavor. I can say from experience that there are particular difficulties that apply when trying to learn new things about how stock investing works.

In any event, you can count on me to do the best job that I am able to do to respond to as many questions as possible while keeping things on a positive track to the greatest extent possible. That's the combination that helps us all learn and it is learning together that makes this all worthwhile and fun.

Rob

The strategy that I recommend is Valuation-Informed Indexing, Mark. Those who buy broad indexes do not need to worry about how particular companies do. So long as the U.S. economy as a whole remains roughly as productive as it has been in the past, we are covered.

Rob

It's okay for you to come to that conclusion for yourself, Mark. It's not okay for you to come to that conclusion on behalf of everyone else who visits here. They get to make up their own minds.

If you go to the home page of my blog and look down the left-hand side, you will see a widget marked “People Are Talking.” There are 45 comments there (with links) from many people, some with well-known names, that find great value in the work we have done in the Retire Early and Indexing communities over the past seven years. Those people have every bit as much a right to comment here as do those who have other viewpoints. They add something important to the discussions and I want to do everything I can to encourage them to participate.

I claim the world is changing so quickly that making investment decisions based on 10 years worth of data is a bad idea. How about a comment directed to that specific sentence?

It's not only for 10 years that we have seen that valuations have always affected long-term returns, Mark. That's been so over the entire historical record, dating back to 1870. The purpose of looking at 10 years of earnings is to mix in both good economic times and poor economic times. It is not the case that Valuation-Informed Indexing has only worked for 10 years. It has been working for 140 years. And there has been lots of change over that time-period.There's been change since the first market opened for business and taking valuations into consideration in setting one's allocation have always been a plus.

Rob

1) Why do ignore my questions and instead substitute answers to 'questions' that were not asked? Please reply directly to this question

2) You have played the 'emotion' card before. It's your favorite. I tried to get a response to from you and you ignored me. I presented my questions in the simplest language I could, albeit using improper terms. You ignore it one again. So how about you stop being emotional and respond to questions? Is that going to happen?

3) I challenged you on using 10 years worth of data and you simply ignore that fact. Question/Comment: My position is that 'valuation-informed' indexing is not viable when you use data that covers 10- years. Your response to that challenge is to ignore it and continue to state your case. That is not productive. So why is 10 years worth of data NOT a ridiculous idea in our rapidly changing world?

4) I agree 'good ideas' are very helpful. What I don't agree with is that your ideas are 'good.' You claim they are good. That is not proof they a e good. the fact that you refuse to answer direct questions tells me you have something to hide.

5) You repeat your thoughts often, but you ignore challenges. You ignore disagreement. You refer to people who disagree with you as emotional. How does any of that contribute to a discussion? How does that suggest that your ideas are still workable in TODAY's market. Please respond as to why those ideas work in TODAY's rapidly changing world?

6) I am going to go out on a limb here: If you once again refuse to reply, I will assume you have nothing to say on the matter and that is an admission that you are just a salesman with a pitch – and nothing worthwhile to sell.

Carl: I put it to YOU. Get you get him to reply? Isn't that the purpose of a back and forth discussion. Question and answer, not question and refusal to reply?

Thanks for hosting the discussion.

I claim the world is changing so quickly that making investment decisions based on 10 years worth of data is a bad idea. How about a comment directed to that specific sentence? Is that asking to much?

Thanks for hosting the blog, Carl.

I can tell you that there have been people who have gotten emotional about Valuation-Informed Indexing at other blogs and at a number of discussion boards. It is the strangest phenomena that I have ever come across in 52 years of walking the planet. Good investing ideas help every single person alive and hurt absolutely no one. But there is something about the investing realm that makes some people view new ideas as a threat. My best attempt at a take on this is that we are all afraid to put our money at risk and yet we all need to choose some investing approach despite our imperfect knowledge, and, once we do, we become emotionally attached to it and have a hard time letting in other possibilities.

There are of course also lots of people who have responded to the new ideas with a great deal of excitement and interest. I like to think that I've learned something from both groups. But it is certainly fair to say that I enjoy my interactions with the positive group more.

My policy is to do the best that I can to answer whatever questions people have while tuning out to the greatest extent possible the negativity. There is one exception to this rule that I believe needs to apply in a limited set of circumstances. There are times when we need to take into consideration the emotional reactions because the emotional reactions are part of the story. If we are not able to have civil discussions of the realities of stock investing, we obviously are limited in what we can learn about this subject in a way that we are not limited when trying to learn about any other area of human endeavor. I can say from experience that there are particular difficulties that apply when trying to learn new things about how stock investing works.

In any event, you can count on me to do the best job that I am able to do to respond to as many questions as possible while keeping things on a positive track to the greatest extent possible. That's the combination that helps us all learn and it is learning together that makes this all worthwhile and fun.

Rob

The strategy that I recommend is Valuation-Informed Indexing, Mark. Those who buy broad indexes do not need to worry about how particular companies do. So long as the U.S. economy as a whole remains roughly as productive as it has been in the past, we are covered.

Rob