Okay, I admit it, I skimmed the rest of the article. I think Gross has got ETFs all wrong when he writes:

That an ETF can satisfy redemption with underlying bonds or shares, only raises the nightmare possibility of a disillusioned and uninformed public throwing in the towel once again after they receive thousands of individual odd lot pieces under such circumstances.

That may aptly describe the "escape valve" for mutual funds, but not for ETFs. The "disillusioned and uninformed public" can sell their ETF shares only on the open market. They can't redeem their shares like Authorized Participants (AP) can. And APs know that they will get a gazillion pieces; that's what they get when they redeem ETF shares under all market conditions. That's the way ETFs are designed to work.
If the market went into free fall, I suspect there would be no telling whether market prices would lag NAV (i.e. fall less slowly, which would normally cause APs to buy, not redeem ETF blocks from the sponsor), or whether the market prices would be falling faster than the underlying NAVs.
My uninformed speculation is that even in the latter case, APs would not be redeeming shares. Normally, when market price is below ETF NAV, an AP will buy the "discount" ETF, redeem it for its components, sell those components on the open market, and pocket the spread. But if those components are falling rapidly in price, the AP might not be able to unload them before they dropped below even the discount price at which the AP obtained them. So the APs might just sit on their hands.
Maybe there are regulations requiring participation. Or maybe APs really do try to catch falling knives. I'm interested in any other facts or thoughts on how ETFs might function in a market meltdown.

Likely for 18-24 months.
Grantham's argument is two-fold: asset class bubbles occur when valuations exceed their historic norms by two standard deviations but high valuations alone don't cause bubbles to pop; you need a trigger. Right now, US stocks are about 1.6 standard deviations high, measured by either Tobin's Q or Schiller CAPE. If you chart the rising valuations, the inflation is pretty steady. It likely won't cross over the "two sigma" line until around the time of the Presidential election. At that point, we'd be set up for a 60% repricing of stocks. In the interim, don't discount your run-of-the-mill 10-15% hiccups.
He is not, he argues, pessimistic. It's just that the rest of us are irrationally optimistic.
The most interesting element of his talk centered on the distortions introduced by the Fed. Publicly traded corporations are posting record profit margins; rather than reinvesting that cash (capital expenditures / capex are at historic low levels), they're buying back overpriced company shares to reward current shareholders. The buybacks are also being funded by low interest debt issuance. Private firms are continuing to commit large amounts of money to capex. That's contributing to the high profit margins, since firms aren't trying to arbitrage their competitors' high profits away by competing for business in those sectors (which would require capex). They're luxuriating in their own cash flows and distributing it straight to executives and other shareholders. The fund managers who are heavily exposed to the energy sector point to a collapsing E&P infrastructure as old rigs retire but few new ones (and few new ships and pipelines and refineries) are funded.
David

Yeah, a lot of great fund people escaped mention. Mary Jo White cannot get her own team on the same page, let alone stop campaign coffers from influencing how politicians in Washington vote on fiduciary matters. Their comment that "requiring bank, insurance, and brokerage houses to accept fiduciary responsibility for clients would hurt individual investors" is laughable. But somehow this position will carry the day.

What a joke. How can you take this list seriously when Professor Snowball doesn't even get an honorable mention.

But he's in good company. T. Rowe Price escaped mention too.

@kevindow- I can see your point, but I have to wonder about the general landscape now out there. When my wife and I were young, we were predisposed to be savers, which is probably one of the most important factors in the whole puzzle. But there was a great dearth of resources from which to "continuously increase ... knowledge of everything financial." Lou Rukeyser's Wall Street Week was one of the few resources available, but even they could not cover the entire financial landscape, nor did they attempt to.
After a few abortive attempts to try stuff on our own, we came across an adviser who, of course, steered us into front loaded American funds. I made it quite clear to the adviser that I didn't like that load, but he justified it on the grounds that he was providing a service, would be available for help and consultation, and also needed to make a living.
He also pointed out that the ongoing American Fund ERs were significantly lower than competing products, and over time, would thus amortize the load. I grudgingly agreed, and used the American Funds exposure to ask lots and lots of questions, and the adviser was very good at explaining the realities of various financial products. An important part of my discussion here is that there were not nearly as many such products available at that time, so things were a lot simpler.
In summary, with a dearth of educational opportunity, an adviser turned out to be a good thing for us. Using that as a stepping stone, we eventually buttressed our American Funds exposure with lots of other no-load stuff from different sources.
Now, of course, it's a completely different situation, as you observe: "Watch WSW, On the Money and NBR on TV. Read Money, Kiplinger, and the WSJ. Take advantage of the M* Classroom." Certainly good advice there (although you might also have mentioned MFO!). But I do wonder if with the huge number of different types of investment vehicles now available it might not still be advisable to have an initial setup with a financial adviser just to get started, and begin the learning process from there. As we discuss here on a regular basis, there are so many financial products out there which are of questionable merit that it might well be difficult for a young person to avoid some of those traps on their own, especially as they are getting started. Once they get their feet wet with something reasonable, and are able to see how that performs (or doesn't), they will have a good platform to begin their own education, as you have noted. Of course a problem with this approach would be finding an appropriate financial adviser, but then that issue is forever with us.

Hi Guys,
Returns are intimately tied to when you leave the investment starting gate. Nobody can consistently predict returns for the next few years. Both GMO and John Hussman have launched signals warning that the Shiller cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio is uncomfortably high. They imply the likelihood of a near-term downturn.
Indeed if that is the case, the question is how to prepare? I sure don’t have a definite answer. Any answer is likely to be closely coupled to an individual’s specific timeframe, his wealth, his risk profile, and his short-term/long-term need tradeoffs. But history can provide some guidelines to help scope the problem.
Here is a Link to a nice chart from the Wrapmanager site that displays the S&P 500 pricing history since 1900:
http://www.wrapmanager.com/wealth-management-blog/did-the-sp-500-reach-all-time-highs-is-there-a-cause-for-concern
Note that the chart also marks off P/E ratios at critical turning points in the S&P’s storied history.
As LewisBraham suggests with his post, when the investment battle is exactly joined directly influences annual returns. Some starting dates are especially disastrous. But over time, the historical record demonstrates that even poor starts have been integrated away by the rising tide. Over the very long haul, the precise starting date is not all that significant.
Here is a Link to a nifty calculator that yields S&P 500 returns with and without dividends reinvested for any input starting and end date. The calculator is from a “Don’t Quit Your Day Job” website:
http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/
The calculations can be easily completed both with and without inflation adjustments.
For example, if an investor had the misfortune to invest immediately before the 1929 Crash, his annual return to this month would have been 9.69% with dividends reinvested. If he had been prescient enough to have delayed that initial entry date until April of 1932, his annual return would be at the 11.37% level.
For those of us old enough to have initiated our investment program immediately after WW II, our annual return would have been 11.01%, again with dividends reinvested. If we have been in the S&P 500 Index over the last 30 years, our reward would have been 10.99%. When you leave the starting gate matters a little, but the returns are impressive regardless of the precise timing.
I hope you visit the websites that I referenced, and that you find them helpful.
Best Wishes.

FYI: The definition of floccinaucinihilipilification is the estimation of something as valueless. It is rarely
used (for obvious reasons) and encountered primarily as an example of one of the longest words in
the English language. I have been waiting for just the right occasion to employ this word, and I finally
found it: Little deserves my use of floccinaucinihilipilification so much as relying on the historical
average of the Shiller CAPE 10 to determine whether stocks are undervalued or overvalued. It can’t
be used to time the market, despite the advice of the gurus who rely on this metric.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/newsletters15/25-are-grantham-and-hussman-correct-about-valuations.php

@chip Thanks for the clarification. I looked more carefully today and found that I can drag the Great Owl tables to scroll through them. However, there's no way to scroll through the MM tables - even when I switch to landscape, the table gets cut off at the start of the 20 year return column.

Just IMO & confirm the following with any Firm you inquire to want to Hire:
First of all as for buying any Ins. Products? Get at least a 2nd and 3rd Opinon, preferably from your own Ins. Agent and be very skeptical .. They are the #2 most Profitable Sales Item for Businesses. many pay 10% Commission to the Agent selling them.. and another 1% yr thereafter.. Thus why they push them so much ! I tell them, If I want an Insurance agent I'll use the one I have for over 20+ yrs thank you..
After Serving the Financial Industry ( and Several Firms , Including RJ ) thru my Limo business in Both Chicao and Boston for over 30 yrs and now Retired..
1- Understand, if they are a Franchise Business that like other Franchises, are Controlled and guided by the Franchisor ( Corp Office) and while may give individual Offices/Franchises some leaway, so that Your Investing your $ into Individual running is, at best 33% True, the other 66% is Controled by what Corp. Says they have to follow..
2- They are no Different in running their franchise type Office any Differently that a Mutual Fund store or EJ, etc.. They all have guidelines to adhear too by " Corporate".. and Depending on your account size, you may get a new Apprentice to one of the Senior Partners running that Office/Franchise.. but, all being Supervised by The Owenrs & Corporate..
3-Your 'Assigned Advisor Will Come and Go , Don't expect them to be with you ForeverMore.. and depending on your Account Size, their Replacement can be one of the Senior to New staff taking your account over, but again, Under the Guidence of the Franchise Owner(s) and 'Corporate'..
4- and you would be wise to be Frank with them, upfront and in informing them, while you have to disclose All your Assets to Determine your Investing plans, your only going to give them either (a) Their Min. Amt. Required to Open an Account or (b) a max of 25%, whichever is less for at least the 1st 3-5 yrs and/or until They Prove themselves Worthy to trust them with More of your hard Earned $.. " Talk is cheap, actions tell you who they really are and only time will prove that, right? "
5- As for these Message Board, always expect that at least 75% or more advisors have good intentions and are very Experienced and Manage their Own $ and don't use WMF's and thus have No Knowledge of what they could have Been & having one do at least 50% of their Decisions..
And , Like you do when evaluating Mutual Funds & Investment Mgmtn. Firms, unless they are willing to Share where their $ has been for the past 7,10 & 15 yrs to back themselves Up?
I'd be very skeptical of following their Suggestions and Advice where to Put your $..
DYOR and then Get In Person Advice from people you Know that have been as or more Successfull doing what you have and want to do , then wait at least 3 mos., before Investing or making any changes with your $ .
6-Personally? I WOULD Recommend RJ if at least 1 of the Min of 3 WMF you want to Ck into and be honest with them all upfront .. of what your doing, ( Comparison Shopping)
and if you have Portfolio's? Bring or send them copies of their history and performance to Let them Know your not Some Rookie at this investing Game.. as well as Informing them your Law Firm that does Family ( & Co.) Business and a CPA firm that does your Taxes and other things will also have to sign off using them as well..
Do you have a Law Firm and CPA firm ? If not? Why not? my CPA firm I've used for over 20+ yrs ( and Now in Retirement ) ave about $500 yr to do my taxes..= Chump change and never been Audited and to me, that is my #1 Priority doing taxes..( I've Been audited in my early yrs in my business and its a Nightmare! )
If the CPA Firm you use has a Good Reputation with IRS? It can make a Big Difference..
Inclosing> I've Owned some of RJ Stock for yrs now and Only because, they were ( and still are) the Financial firm of the Owners of the Limo Co. I was with .. Then again, they Opened up an account with them to get them as a Co. Client to serve them and other Wealthy Clients & Co.'s they have.. And that stock has been Free $ to me for yrs and the only reason I kept it and let it ride on its own.. I think its about 5% of my Tot Assets as of last yr.. And Opptimistically? Will also be Passed Onto my Heirs and up to them wether to Cash it in or keep it ..They, all being Richer than I ever was at their age and their nice Over paid Jobs and Pensions, don't need the $.. Both Living in the "Beverly Hills of the Midwest" ( NorthShore or Chicago).. and R Yuppies as well ! ( and their Neighborhoods/Assoc. Don't allow owners to Mow their own lawns, it all is done by the Assoc. Landscapers ! Its Disgusting ! ;-)
Hope that helps! ;-0)

Hi Old Joe,
Thank you for commenting on Davidrmoran’s submittal. It would have completely escaped my notice since I had mentally closed this MFO Discussion exchange.
The request to identify my investment lessons learned and from whom over six decades of financial accumulation is simply not a doable task, even if I wanted to accept the assignment. Sorry, I have no intention to reply to this unrealistic and unnecessary request.
I learn and unlearn every single day; it’s a continuous process. I learn daily from my wife, and from our friends and neighbors. I learn from MFOers, and that even includes Davidrmoran. In his last post, he endorsed John Waggoner as a financial writer, and then noted that Waggoner is retiring from his USA Today job. I did not know that he was leaving his USA engagement.
I too like John Waggoner’s financial wisdom. I have read his material for decades and will continue to do so with his new career adjustment. I believe that both Tom Lauricella and John Waggoner generate splendid columns and have an admirable work ethic. I trust both of them, and do not hesitate recommending them to both neophyte and seasoned investors.
I wish both them well in the next phase of their illustrious careers.
As an aside, I really liked your posting on the Unions topic. It is extremely well written and thoughtful. Nice work!
Best Wishes.

"No assumptions are necessary. Jim Stack is directing his advice to all investors: to you, to me, to MFOers, and to his legion of loyal followers."
---
Wow - If Stack's advice is to be taken seriously would his vision than not become a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Here's why: If all investors decided to ratchet-down their equity exposure by 10-15% based on Stack's forecast, equity valuations would than adjust downwards to reflect the new reality. In fact, they might well over-shoot on the downside.
I haven't learned a thing from this thread. There are hundreds of bright people like Stack whose views are worth reading. We can learn from all of them. None deserve the attention Stack seems to be receiving here. I got a lot more out of JohnC's thread on "bullish" or "bearish" as I was able to identify different types of investors (here at MFO) with the varying outlooks offered - and none of the views were served up as sacrosanct.
There's another issue here which seems to have largely escaped discussion. That's this whole notion of trying to time markets. Yes - Stack is merely advocating "reducing exposure". To me, that's a cute way of saying: try to time markets. And I think that's terrible advice for younger investors attempting to grow a retirement nest egg. For "oldsters" (probably the predominant group on this board) who have already accumulated a nest egg, timing makes a bit more sense from a defensive point of view, but is still a "dicey" (a begrudging nod to Vegas) proposition - the benefits of which are highly dependent upon both the investor's temperament and goals as well as a whole host of unknowns.

@jlev, thanks for the MFO writeup, I know I must have read it because I read every word of every commentary but I just didn't remember it.
I've been watching MOAT for years and while I'm impressed with the "idea" behind it I'm less convinced about M*'s fair value process. It seems to me they make big changes too often (for instance I think they were very far behind the eight ball on energy) and then they seem to be all over the place with their moat definitions. I'll give them credit for having a decent record but I'm just worried they'll find a way to screw it up over time.
@00BY, thanks also for the mention of IVAL. The MFO writeup provided the full context of their overall strategy. I agree with you that it appears more aggressive. In fact, with a portfolio focused far more on Japan than Europe it actually seems a bit more like the momentum version that's supposed to come later this year. My general impression from the CAPE information I look at every once in a while is that Japan is overvalued in general terms, but apparently they're finding a lot of value there.

No, no, MJG. You can squirm, doubletalk and evade all day long, but here's the straight facts, in correct sequence:
First, you said: "The planned Bay Bridge section will be a huge success and will be a lasting example of American engineering expertise for a century or more."
To which I replied: "it is evident that your commentary is completely divorced from reality."
Then, you said: Thanks for the Bay Bridge update. Obviously I knew nothing about its status or current crop of deficiencies.
I then noted the parallel with your "No, no!" diatribe against David Moran, in which you viciously castigated him for responding to you with insufficient accuracy.
Causing you to ask: "For reasons that escape me, you assume that I should be conversant with happenings in San Francisco. Why?"
To which I answered: "Pretty straightforward: In response to my observation that "I'll leave the engineering to the designers of our new Bay Bridge section" you INITIATED a commentary which strongly suggested that you were conversant with our current engineering fiasco."
You now say that "My comments represented general "good practice" engineering policy, especially after that Tacoma bridge collapse" in a pathetic attempt to re-color your earlier comments. It's quite obvious that you are applying two completely different standards to your comments, and the comments of others.

"For reasons that escape me, you assume that I should be conversant with happenings in San Francisco. Why?"
Pretty straightforward: In response to my observation that "I'll leave the engineering to the designers of our new Bay Bridge section" you INITIATED a commentary which strongly suggested that you were conversant with our current engineering fiasco. Remember that? It was only a few hours ago, after all.
Mostly Just Gas. Of course you're not repentant; your self-biased double-standard allows you that luxury. By the way, in contradiction to your speculation regarding "psyches" I kinda like my "Zebra stripes", and honestly don't consider you to be any sort of credible threat.

Hi Old Joe,
Well I guess I was wrong again with my overly optimistic hope that a Zebra would change its stripes. In your case, I suppose that will never happen.
Yes, I did send a truculent reply to a feeble response on my Broken Window submittal. In that tepid response, the sender admitted that his comments just might be off target with “point taken, thanks; I will try to respond with something thoughtful…. “. I thought that was an vague admission, and my heated posting followed. The issue was dead until you just referenced it.
You only posted selected parts of my posting. Here is the entirety of it:
“No, no! Your brief concession that you touted an inappropriate Broken Window reference doesn’t answer the muster call. It didn’t sound the trumpet; it was barely a whisper.
In your reply posting on this matter you predicted that I would not even read your reference. Well you were wrong; I did.
Apparently you posted that Link without reading it yourself. The very first paragraph in your referenced article clearly identifies it as a social policing initiative, and not one that addresses economic theory issues.
In your initial response to me you said : “This entry is thorough, if you're genuinely interested in the complex subject, which somehow I bet is not really the case…”. Well I was "genuinely" interested enough to access your article. Given its unsuitable character, I suspect you yourself never did even casually examine it. That’s shamefully dishonest.
Your creditability is shot; it is done and it is your own doing. Based on this present experience, any checking of your references is a grand time sinkhole. I will not play that wasteful game. Please don’t bother to now search for seemingly applicable counter references. You would be wasting your precious time.
I am not a devoted Austrian economics conscript. I am also not a committed Keynesian follower. Both economic schools have something to offer, but are circumstance dependent. Both are right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Krugman is right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Economics is not a hard science. What worked economically yesterday might be a complete failure today.
I never intended to get embroiled in an economic theory food fight here. It’s sloppy slogging, and surely will not be fully explored on a website designed to exchange mutual fund data and ideas. My contribution to this food fight ends now.
Apparently, other MFOers are prepared to pickup the gauntlet. Good luck to all. This debate has little chance of any meaningful resolution.”
That’s the end of my submittal. What aroused my anger most was the charge that I would not read the included reference and that I was not genuinely interested. I did and I was.
For reasons that escape me, you assume that I should be conversant with happenings in San Francisco. Why? I have visited New York city and Baltimore more recently, and still never consider reading the Baltimore Sun newspaper.
At the time of your original posting that introduced the Bay Bridge example, you did not provide references relative to its many problems, or even to hint at them. Later you do.
Indeed, I have high publishing standards. I do fact-check most, but not all, of what I quote in my informational sections. I try to clearly delineate between my opinions and the general information that I provide. If inadvertent errors are made in the general information sections, I urge folks to alert me. I will correct them. Bad stuff happens.
Sometimes my opinions run counter to others on MFO. I don’t understand why that rattles some folks as much as it does, unless they are only seeking what behaviorist call a Conformation Bias. If that’s the case, I’m the wrong guy to read. The solution is simplicity itself: just avoid my postings completely. My postings must be more dangerous to a few individual’s psyches than I intend. I’m not repentant.
Best Wishes.

FYI: As soon as the program becomes available for free, early tomorrow, I will link it.
Regards,
Ted
May 7, 2015
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen caused a bit of a stir in an interview Wednesday when she commented that “equity market valuations at this point generally are quite high.”
It wasn’t exactly an “irrational exuberance” speech, a la Alan Greenspan in 1996, but pundits were quick to point out that his observation was about four years early, as the markets continued to rally until the March 2000 peak.
The market is expensive historically, based on several longer term measures including one of our favorites, the CAPE ratio, or Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings ratio, created by frequent WEALTHTRACK guest, Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Shiller.
The CAPE, which is figured by taking the current price for the S&P 500, divided by the average of S&P earnings over the last ten years, adjusted for inflation, is currently around 27. That is well above its 20th century average of about 15.
Fed Chairman Yellen isn’t the only one concerned about stock market levels, professional investors are too.
According to a recent survey from State Street Global Advisors, of over 400 institutional investors worldwide, 63% of them increased their stock exposure over the last six months, but 53% wish they could decrease it and would if they had a more attractive alternative. Talk about conflicted!
Plus, 57% expect a market correction of between 10 and 20% in the next 12 months!
Normally investors could turn to bonds for income and protection, but with bond yields near record lows, they are no longer a viable option.
According to this week’s guest, Clifford Asness, both stocks and bonds are more expensive now than they have been in 90% of market history. Asness is Founder, Managing Principal and Chief Investment Officer at AQR Capital Management.
AQR stands for Applied Quantitative Research, which they use in a number of strategies.
Founded in 1998, AQR, now a global investment management firm, oversees more than 130 billion dollars in hedge funds, mutual funds and a diversified collection of investment strategies, from traditional long-only ones to multiple alternative approaches. I asked Asness how unusual it was for both stocks and bonds to be this expensive at the same time and what investors should be doing in response.
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Asness, about his new venture with London Business School, available exclusively on our website.
If you have comments or questions, please connect with us via Facebook or Twitter.
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo

Hi Old Joe,
To quote Ronald Reagan from the 1980 Presidential debates with Jimmy Carter: “There you go again”.
What pleasure do you take in building a straw-man (that’s me), and then meaninglessly attacking that straw-man? That could be a dangerous practice for you. This straw-man chooses to fight over either flight or freezing. My posting record shows that over and over again.
In this instance, you purposely misinterpret simple declarative statements that I wrote: "If you guys want to continue this discussion, that’s fine. Everyone is free to disagree." I meant nothing more than what I said. There is no deep hidden meaning that lurks below the surface.
Somehow, with malicious intent, you distort and insinuate my real meaning to declare that I hold MFOers postings as “substandard commentary”. That’s a total fabrication that was invented in your own mind. That’s sad indeed.
But I do appreciate this addition to your continuing and gratuitous tirade directed at me.
It further documents your spiteful and nasty nature. Your written words say much more about your character than they identify my shortcomings. It permits seasoned MFOers to compare and judge the merits of your superfluous assertions against my posts. I’m sure they recognize and measure the quality to these exchanges.
I note that in your comment, you use the plural “we” when recording “our” disapproval. Given your choice of pronouns, you presume to be speaking for the bulk of the MFO community.
To satisfy my curiosity, I wonder how you assembled this imagined cohort. Did you conduct a comprehensive and independent survey? Did Professor Snowball provide you with some statistical documentation? Or are these the rants of a lone dissenter who has an old, rusted axe to grind? I suspect the latter.
Why you persist in your ill-conceived vendetta totally escapes me. But I still hope for your rapid and complete recovery from this wasteful malady.
Best Wishes (sort of since my patience is thinning but my resolve is not).

Hi Hank,
Thank you for replying.
Reading your agitated response clearly demonstrates that I was not too far off base when I commented that I was “Sorry if I touched a tender spot”. Again, based on your reply, I not only touched a tender, soft spot, I apparently violated it.
I suspect one reason for your highly charged response is at least partially connected to a Conformational bias. “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest”. We all fall victim to this behavioral bias.
It certainly appears that you have concluded that our investment philosophies and practices differ somewhat. That’s likely true. Most of what appears on these discussions is simply market opinion. There are very few absolute rights or enduring wrongs when investing.
It seems you most strongly object to my MFO posting style. That’s presumptive on your part. But, you are welcome to your opinion. Others on MFO share that opinion, but others do not. I do not aim to please everyone.
Rather than addressing the substance of my posts, you challenge my form and format. You said: “To profess respect - and than proceed to inundate a discussion with your own doctrinaire perspective(s), superior intelligence and recommended reading list is not respect.”
Yes, I do write with purpose; I try to clearly state that purpose and my position. That’s what communication is all about. Words are powerful tools. I try very hard to assemble them to produce a lucid investment composition that is also entertaining.
I never, never claimed to be an expert. I frequently extol my amateur status and have freely admitted that I’m a self-educated investor with many shortcomings. I certainly never claimed “superior intelligence”. By the way, that’s a losers game since data shows that superior intelligence does not correlate positively with superior investment returns.
In my entire work-life, I competed for contracts with written proposals, so I do try to write with conviction and to document my positions. Hence, I provide statistics and references to buttress those positions. All this takes words and carefully crafted, logical sentences. Why some MFOers want to enforce a tight word limit escapes me. The solution is obvious: If the submittal is too long, ignore it.
For my entire FundAlarm and MFO posting period, I have stressed the benefits of a statistical understanding and the merits of Monte Carlo analyses under some conditions. This has angered some other participants, perhaps because of their mathematical limitations. But I remain committed to that purpose. If I have not yet won that battle, I surely have not yet lost it either.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” That’s not me talking, it’s a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche.
Best Wishes.
ADDED COMMENT: Perhaps my comment that provoked your ire was too simplistic. I certainly never intended to coupled you with misguided axioms. You partially agreed with 4 of them. My misguided term referred to misled and/or misinformed investors. I may not agree with specific investors, but I still respect them.
And I really mean Best Wishes. I want all of us to succeed as investors.

"Don't piss into the wind,
Don't step on Superman's cape ..."

Yes, "the results are lackluster considering the sheer size and duration of easy monetary policy this time." No argument.
How many years did it take to escape the Great Depression?
I'll happily accept "lackluster" in lieu of another World War to revive an economy.