One more time for the record, I never called anyone snake oil salemen, since you quoted my text in response just making sure the reccord is correct. I have not made any attacks on anyone on this forum, ever. Disagreeing with ideas, or calling out inconsistencies in statements made over the years should not be considered as an attack. Consistency of statements do matter, for instance, I'll bring up two major topics of disagreements between advisors over here and on the old forum.larryswedroe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:20 pmYes that is true. But there is absolutely rigorous research and logic and evidence and plenty of data to support their strategies. It's all well documented and even presented in my book Your Complete Guide to Factor Based Investing, where each factor is tested for persistence, pervasiveness, robustness, implementability and intuitiveness. In every case. Now if you are not aware of all the evidence that's one thing. You can also disagree with the conclusions. That's fine too. But saying AQR are snake oil salesmen is an attack without justification and IMO if going to do so one should at least have courage to put their name behind it, not hide anonymously.Obviously they are not the same situation between lending crisis and the models employed vs. the models employed by AQR. However, the point remains all models have some basic assumptions they take into consideration. What you are suggesting is that AQR is different, and theirs is based on sound theory. I am skeptical until proven wrong with evidence of long enough performance history under different market scenarios. It's just a large leap of faith to say, here trust us, we got this right and all the others are wrong.
1. Troutner vs. Swedroe on REITs - on this issue Troutner argued REITs are unnecessary addition to a portfolio and taking away space from investing in Small Value otherwise. That there is no evidence of REITs providing additional incentives to a portffolio of small value stocks. Swedroe's position: REIT are a unique asset and there is plenty of academic evidence in favor of including them. Lately, you had changed your mind. Does that mean, all those arguments with Troutner should have been avoided and he was right after all.
2. Ferri vs Swedroe on CCFs - on this Ferri argued CCFs provide no value to a portfolio, since they do not provide gorwth or dividents, and added costs bring down any advantage, as well as they are not intended for investment portfolios held by individuals Swedroe's position: CCFs are a unique asset that adds benefits to a portffolio when used properly by taking away from equities, and also going long on term risk. Here too, the position has changed over the years. Does that mean all those debates could have been avoided and Ferri was right all along.
Again, not an attack, just presenting the internal inconsistency on these topics, and I have a hard time acccepting the latest case for liquid alts for these reasons.