sreynard wrote:
OK, you are correct. I do not see the flaws in Taylor's "argument". It seemed like a pretty clear statement of opinion to me that so far appears to be correct.
Hyperbole - "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally"
Sorry, no hyperbole was intended. It seems to me that if you wish to claim that someone's argument is faulty, you should be able to give reasonable proof. In other words, how was Mr. Bogle wrong? Presenting an argument that someone didn't actually make and then disproving it is what is known as a straw man.
Straw man - "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
As another poster commented there seem to be whole armies of straw men being set up and mowed down around here.
The statement, "Mr. Bogle has been right," is a fact that can be proven or dis-proven. The fact that Taylor made that argument solely based on performance was an inference that was not given in the original statement. Taylor did not provide any argument about why he believed Bogle to be correct, or about the future, so any conclusions of his opinions would be speculation. If you wish to disagree with Taylor's opinion, feel free, but I fail to see where you have the right to determine what opinions relevant to investing he can or can not state.
There is no straw man. One may play coy by claiming my interpretation, and the interpretation expressed by many other readers, is a misguided inference, and not an actual statement, but here are the three main things Taylor stated, and the order in which he stated them:
1) In 1993, Bogle said investors' foreign stock allocation should be no more than 20% of equities.
2) From 1993 to May 2017, US stocks have outperformed foreign stocks.
3) Bogle has been right.
That's it. That's all Taylor said. Taylor's claim that Bogle has been right is predicated entirely on the fact that US stocks have offered greater returns from 1993 to May 2017. No other evidence is offered for why an investor should have allocated no more than 20% of their equities to international stocks. No other reason behind the statement, Bogle has been right, is given. The linked article is generally critical of Bogle's claim that he was "really right," noting biases, internal contradictions, and ways of measuring performance where he would be wrong. So, you may have other evidence for why Bogle has been right. Bogle may have other evidence for why Bogle has been right. Even Taylor might have other evidence for why Bogle has been right, but Taylor did not offer any such evidence.
You are certainly correct that Taylor can state any opinion he wishes. Others have the right to point out the fallacious reasoning behind such opinions, the dangers of following them, and the generally inappropriate nature of determining whether or not an investment decision was correct by examining the isolated returns of a single asset class over a single time period without considering risk, the rest of the portfolio, or really, anything else at all.
Of course, this post, all my posts preceding it, and all my posts that follow, are merely my opinions.