I was wrong.
Not exactly a compelling argument since you could've made a risk-free return via savings accounts (Wealthfront currently has 2.3%, which I'm sure has been higher in the past).
 Nov 1999 one year prior to crash, to Nov 2012
Hmm. Isn't that known to be impossible?
Several strategies like keeping a fixed ratio of stocks to bond are effectively timing the market. You pull money out of stocks when they go up, and put money into them when they go down.
Personally, I am less interested in absolutely maximizing my returns as I am maximizing the likelihood of reaching a return threshold.
Rebalancing is really taking money out of whatever the better investment was and putting it into what was the worse investment. Consider what would happen if you rebalance an asset like a stock that’s slowly going to 0. Over time your portfolio also hits ~zero even if everything else was going well.
Sure, for a sufficiently diversified investment like the S&P 500 it’s unlikely to hit zero. But the question stands why take money out of the better investment for 50+ years? You could be moving from 10% returns to 2% returns. The theory is about timing the market, you get better returns investing after ups than downs.
PS: Though better may in fact relate to stability more than absolute percentages.
Changing your asset allocation yearly or quarterly based on news is foolish. I’d call that timing too.
As to changing asset ratios, it likely reduces maximum returns. But, wealth has diminishing marginal utility. I can save a little more to make up for a small loss in returns for a few years, it’s much harder to make up for a 50% market dip.