“We Have Seen Huge Advances in Computer Technology Over the Past 33 Years. If the Computer Technology Field Were As Resistant to Change As the Investing Advice Field, We Would All Still Be Using Typewriters and Buying Huge Quantities of White-Out. The Wall Street Con Men Want to Protect Their Turf.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:

Rob, Rephrased another way, many of us do not agree with your statements and have given you the reason why. However, you are not banned because of this disagreements. Instead, you are banned because of your behavior. Many have told you time after time as to your behavior issues and you just ignore it. You feel as if you should be able to act any way you want on a board, despite the negative impact to the community. A board is a place to have a discussion and not to be there for the sole purpose of carrying out the Rob Bennett agenda.

The Rob Bennett Agenda is the future of investing analysis, Anonymous.Valuation-Informed Indexing reduces the risk of stock investing by 70 percent while letting the investors who employ the strategy retire five to ten years sooner than they ever imagined possible back in the days in which they believed in Buy-and-Hold. VII is the first true research-based investing strategy. It puts an end to economic crises (every economic crises we have suffered in 140 years followed a time of insane overvaluation, which is not possible in a world in which most investors follow VII strategies). VII is smart, safe, simple investing. We know from the positive reactions we have seen from thousands of posters during the first 12 years of our discussions that there are millions of middle-class people who want to learn more about the concept. I am going to see to it that they are able to do so.I am not asking your permission. I am telling you how it is going to be.

We have seen amazing advances in computer technology over the past 33 years. If the computer technology field were as resistant to change as the investing advice field, we would all still be using typewriters and buying huge quantities of white-out. The Wall Street Con Men don’t want us to move forward. They want to protect their turf. They have power and money and connections. So they have grown accustomed to bullying people into letting them have their way. When the internet came on the scene, they saw that their ability to block investors from learning what they need to learn was threatened and so they turned to Internet Goon Squads to do their dirty work.

Sorry, you lose.

No sale.

Find some other country in which to peddle your Get Rich Quick garbage.

In this country, my country, we are moving on.

Every investor in this country is going to learn what the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research says about what works in stock investing. Count it. I am going to see to it. The decision has been made and it is not going to be reversed. No apologies whatsoever.

You can stand in the way. You can try to stop me. I cannot force you to go along.

But please understand that those who stand in the path of the History Train will be run over.

It’s nothing personal.

But we are not a Goon nation. And we are not going to permit you Goons to determine what we can talk about on the internet.

Put forward b.s. and you will be called out on your b.s.

Cause people to lose money and you will be sued for financial damages.

Engage in financial fraud and you will go to prison.

Like that.

We adopted the civil and criminal laws of this nation to protect ourselves from people like you and those laws will be enforced. The way it is.

We have an educational task that needs to be completed before we can persuade prosecutors to file the papers that they need to file. That will be addressed. Things will speed up considerably following the next price crash. I am sure.

That’s where things stand.

You are right that I have behavior issues. I am honest. And Buy-and-Hold is the purest and most dangerous Get Rich Quick scheme ever concocted by the human mind. So honestly is a not a behavioral trait that can be tolerated by either the Wall Street Con Men or by the Internet Goons Squads who do their dirty work.

So be it.

The difference is that my behavior is supported by the laws of the United States of America and yours is not.

So we will see as time passes who has fell and who’s been left behind.

I naturally wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors in any event, my old friend.

Rob

“The Problem Today Is That the Buy-and-Holders Will Not Permit the Effect of Valuation To Be Quantified. Most People Have NO IDEA How Big the Valuations Effect Is. The Perfect Illustration of This Is Bogle’s Claim That There Is No Need for Investors to Lower Their Stock Allocations By More Than 15 Percentage Points Even When Valuation Are Insanely High. That’s Not Even Close to Being Right.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:

You don’t get to force people to change studies they may have done, even if you feel a variable could be included that wasn’t.

That’s not how it works in any field of endeavor other than stock investing, Anonymous.

If the tobacco companies tried putting out a study showing that smoking four packs of cigarettes a day adds ten years to life expectancy, you would see an uproar that would force them to acknowledge that the study is pure b.s.

In future days, that’s how it will work in the investing advice field too. Humans possess a deep need to evidence ethical behavior. That’s true of people working in this field as much as it is of people working in other fields.

In fact, I believe that one of the reasons why the reactions we have seen from you Goons are so intense is that it causes you pain NOT to act ethically. You don’t want to abandon Buy-and-Hold. And you have no effective response to the 33 years of peer-reviewed research showing that there is zero chance that it could ever work for even a single investor. So you feel that you have no choice but to behave unethically. But you don’t like the idea of people seeing that. So you demand that honest posting on the last three decades of research be banned. I obviously don’t approve of this “solution” to your problem. But I think in fairness it should be said that it shows that there is a desire somewhere deep within you to be seen as ethical. That reality will help us all bring this to a resolution somewhere down the road a bit.

I cannot force anybody to do anything, Anonymous. We certainly agree on that limited point. But I can expose the corruption in a field in which errors in retirement studies become public knowledge and those studies remain uncorrected for 12 years, no? That’s not me, Rob Bennett, forcing something by myself. It is an entire society taking action to demand that one field of human endeavor — the investing advice field — adhere to the same ethical standards as every other field in our society.

That’s a big deal. Once we have investing advisors adhering to the same ethical standards as people who work in every other field, Buy-and-Hold is finished. It’s been hanging on only because the Wall Street Con Men have had enough money and power and influence to make this field an exception to the usual rules for a time. I think it would be fair to say that those days are coming to an end. The house of cards is in the process of toppling to the ground. We are going to see reasonable ethical standards apply in this field.

And you know what? It’s going to be people WITHIN the field who are going to end up leading the effort. I have seen LOTS of evidence of that during the first 12 years. MOST people in this field want to feel free to honor minimal ethical standards. And so that’s how it is going to be.

I hope that, when as a society we bring about that change, you won’t feel that you are being “forced” to correct those darn Old School SWR studies.

And you’ve already agreed with my statement that most folks are just like you – informed about Valuations, and making personal decisions about whether or not to modify their allocations based on them.

I don’t AT ALL agree that people are adequately informed. For people to become informed, we need to permit honest posting on every board and blog on the internet.

I agree that people accept that valuations matter.

The problem today is that the Buy-and-Holders will not permit the effect of valuations to be quantified. Most people have NO IDEA how big the valuations effect is.

The perfect illustration of this is Bogle’s claim that there is no need for investors to lower their stock allocations by more than 15 percentage points even when valuations are insanely high. That’s not even close to being right. There’s never been a more dangerous statement put forward in the history of personal finance. That statement is in the process of causing MILLIONS of people to suffer failed retirements. It has caused a mountain of human misery.

Why don’t journalists call out Old Saint Jack on that statement on a daily basis?

Why don’t policymakers give speeches demanding that he either offer research-based support for a statement that is destroying our economic system or stop making the foolish and irresponsible statement?

Why don’t academic researchers declare their freedom from the dictates of the Buy-and-Hold Mafia by publishing peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study showing the reality that a percentage change of 60 percent is needed when prices reach insanely dangerous levels?

They are all afraid.

That’s all.

And they are ashamed of being afraid.

So they tell themselves that this is not such a big deal, that we will somehow struggle along with Big Shots like Bogle offering loony tune numbers that he pulled out of his backside.

But we won’t. Bogle HURTS people by offering loony tune numbers that he pulled out of his backside.

And he hurts HIMSELF too.

We will work up the courage to react appropriately to such dangerous claims. Because as a society we have no other realistic options.

And then you will see Rob Bennett doing everything in his power to help people understand WHY my good friend Jack behaved so poorly for so long a time. Because we must have healing to get to all the exciting stuff on the other side of The Big Black Mountain.

Before the healing comes the truth telling. That’s the priority today. But healing will be a priority in Stage Two of this process.

At any rate, people are NOT informed. People are afraid. People are ashamed. And they are afraid and ashamed because they are NOT informed. Their common sense tells them that valuations MUST matter. But they have for 33 years not been able to bring their intellects into alignment with their common sense because the Buy-and-Holders have been so brutal in their use of intimidation tactics to keep the findings of the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research covered up.

People WILL become informed. That’s my “agenda,” as you call it.

It’s going to happen. It is well on its way to happening. We have done amazing things over the first 12 years of our discussions. But it is not time to declare victory just yet. Not every battle has been won as of this morning.

Give it time.

My best wishes to you, old friend.

Rob

“Whenever There Is a Huge Advance in Human Knowledge, We Have Lots of People Believing in the Same WRONG Thing. There Is Not One Way in Which Buy-and-Hold Changed As a Result of Shiller’s “Revolutionary” (His Word) Findings.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:

So basically the difference is that he doesn’t believe in a global conspiracy that somehow subconsciously acts in a coordinated way

If you can put forward a better explanation of the realities that have appeared before us, I would sure like to hear it, Laugh.

Greaney’s retirement study does not contain a valuations adjustment. That’s a stone cold fact. So the study obviously gets the SWR number wildly wrong.

Why did no one point this out until the morning of May 13, 2002? And why do so few object that the study has not been corrected to this day?

We should all want to know the answers to these questions.

There are millions of people affected by this. So we ought to be able to agree that it would in ordinary circumstances be impossible to keep the errors in the Old School SWR studies covered up this long. Yet the reality remains that they have not been corrected to this day.

How do you explain this?

Yes, there is a sort of conspiracy. All people who have either advocated Buy-and-Hold strategies or followed Buy-and-Hold strategies feel emotional pain in coming to terms with the mistake they made. They have delayed their retirements by many years. They have hurt their friends. They have been taken for fools. It hurts to accept these realities. So they rationalize away what the research says and try desperately to hang on to their long-discredited beliefs about how stock investing works.

That’s a conspiracy in the sense that lots of people with similar interests are acting in the same way. But it is not a conspiracy in the way that the word is usually used. No one met in a smoke-fiilled room and arranged for people to act in concert.

And the people who are engaging in deceptions and making use of intimidation tactics follow Buy-and-Hold strategies themselves. They are hurting others. BUT THEY ARE ALSO HURTING THEMSELVES. That’s not the way that we generally think of conspiracies playing out. We usually think of conspirators as people acting in their self-interest. This is a case where the conspirators are hurting themselves financially because they cannot bear the emotional pain that follows from learning what the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research tells us about how stock investing works.

That’s “a global conspiracy that somehow acts in a coordinated way.”

You try to make it sound as if this is an incredible event. It IS strange stuff. But it is by no means unprecedented stuff.

I have heard that Galileo was put under house arrest for saying that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around. Would it be fair to say that he lived at a time when there was a global conspiracy to tell people that the sun revolves around the earth that somehow acted in a coordinated way?

It’s easy to get lots of people to act in a coordinated way when lots of people believe the same thing.

And, whenever there is a huge advance in human knowledge, we have lots of people believing in the same WRONG thing.

That’s what we have here. People really believed in Buy-and-Hold for a long time. Many staked their retirements on it. Many staked their careers on it. Many devoted years of their lives writing books about it or developing calculators rooted in a belief in it.

Then this Shiller fellow came along and published peer-reviewed research showing them that they were wrong. Not by a little bit. Shiller showed that the Buy-and-Hold concept is the OPPOSITE of what works. His research implies that exercising price discipline is the key to long-term investing success. Practicing long-term timing is 80 percent of the game. Shiller showed something very, very important. The implications of his insight are so far-reaching that he caused a lot of good and smart people to feel an intense emotional pain.

So, yes, they looked the other way. They patted him on the head and said “Shiller is great” and then returned to what they were doing before he came along as if his research didn’t exist. There is not one way in which Buy-and-Hold changed as a result of Shiller’s “revolutionary” (his word) findings.

The huge bull market aided those who looked the other way. No one was mad at them for doing so because everyone was enjoying the Pretend Gains of the runaway bull. To recognize the import of Shiller’s findings would be to acknowledge that those gains were Pretend. Who needed that? Everyone was “successful.” Everyone was rich. Everyone was having a ball. The Buy-and-Holders had figured it all out and were not to be questioned.

Now we are in the early years of paying the price for looking the other way.

We have intellectually achieved the greatest advance in the history of personal finance over the past 30 years. But anyone who either advocated Buy-and-Hold or followed a Buy-and-Hold strategy does not want the word getting out. They feel shame because of how they have hurt themselves and millions of others. Looking the other way caused an economic crisis. Buy-and-Hold is the lie so huge that it cannot be acknowledged.

Humans don’t like to think that they have been responsible for so much human misery. So they tell themselves stories. They rationalize. They say “Sure, valuations matter, but it is impossible to take advantage of this reality.” It’s a claim that makes zero sense in the logical sphere and that enjoys zero support in the historical data but one that offers some temporary emotional relief to those who have been looking the other way for so long now that they cannot bear the thought of ever acknowledging the obvious (and highly encouraging once you accept them!) truths.

Most of us are engaged in a “global conspiracy that somehow unconsciously acts in a coordinated way.” That’s because most of us are ignorant of the realities. That’s because most of us continue to look the other way. That’s because most of us DON’T WANT TO KNOW how stock investing works in the real world.

None of that is criminal behavior. It’s sad. But human beings have been ignorant of lots of important truths at earlier times in history. It happens. It’s one of those things.

Fortunately, we have means to overcome our ignorance over time. We have discussion boards. We have blogs. We have newspapers. We have magazines. We have studies. We have calculators.

This is where the criminal stuff — my focus nowadays because it must be addressed before we can all enjoy the wonderful blessings that have been bestowed on us as a result of the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research in this field — comes in.

Those who want to continue looking the other way have seen what happens when the truths are spoken in clear and firm and direct and understandable ways. PEOPLE OVERCOME THEIR IGNORANCE. The horror! Something must be done.

That’s where you Goons come in.

Punish people who dare to “cross” the Buy-and-Holders by reporting honestly and accurately what the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research says severely enough and you can stop them from continuing to do so. You can stop others who have similar ideas as well. As the holes in the Buy-and-Hold concept get more and more noticeable, it takes harsher and harsher pubishments to keep the house of cards from collapsing to the ground. But the Wall Street Con Men have lots of money and power and influence and the majority of middle-class investors remain largely ignorant of the realities today. So this remains a viable strategy for keeping people in the dark. Less and less so all the time. But still at least barely viable as of this morning.

I am not playing this stupid game, Laugh.

I am telling.

That’s my job.

That’s what I am going to do.

I naturally wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors regardless of what investing strategies you elect to pursue.

Rob

 

Valuation-Informed Indexing #193: What Tolstoy, Machiavelli and Joan of Arc Can Tell Us About Stock Investing

I’ve posted Entry #193 to my weekly Valuation-Informed Indexing column at the Value Walk site. It’s called What Tolstoy, Machiavelli and Joan of Arc Can Tell Us About Stock Investing.

Juicy Excerpt: “There is nothing more doubtful of success than a new system. The initiator has the enmity of all who profit by preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new one.’

That’s Machiavelli. The guy nailed it! How did he know precisely why it was going to be so hard to make the transition from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing centuries before either model was conceived? That’s smart stuff!

If Valuation-Informed Indexing represented a small improvement on Buy-and-Hold, all of the ideas that move under this banner would have been adopted a long time ago. The trouble is that the advance is a huge one. Reduce the risk of stock investing by 10 percent and the world beats a path to your door. Reduce the risk of stock investing by 70 percent and you make lots of people who have built careers promoting the inferior model feel defensive and embarrassed and resentful and hostile.

“Todd Tresidder Is Not Banned Anywhere. Todd Is Liked By Everyone. What’s the Difference Between Todd and Me? He Doesn’t Tell About the History of Financial Fraud By the Buy-and-Holders Because He Knows It Will Enrage the Wall Street Con Men and Their Internet Goon Squads. I Expect to Become Famous All Over the Internet for Bringing This Huge Act of Financial Fraud to Light.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:

Notice the lack of progress you have made in getting any serious attention on any site that is considered mainstream.

Those are the ones that you Goons patrol. Those are the ones where we need to see honest posting to bring down Buy-and-Hold.

Todd Tresidder’s Financial Mentor site is not a mainstream site. He tells the truth there. He warned people of the dangers of the Old School SWR studies. He points out all the time that valuations affect long-term returns.

Todd is not banned anywhere. Todd is liked by everyone. Todd gets speaking engagements at the Financial Bloggers Conferences all the time.

What’s the difference between Todd and me?

When Todd wrote his post on the errors of the Old School SWR studies, I put up some long comments pointing out how the Buy-and-Holders had been engaging in abusive tactics to cover up the errors in those studies for years. Todd called me on the phone and asked that I not put up such posts. He doesn’t want people to hear about this history from reading his site.

Why?

Because it will enrage the Wall Street Con Men and their Internet Goon Squads if he allows honest posting at his site on these issues. The 12-year cover-up is the biggest act of financial fraud in the history of the United States. Many Buy-and-Holders will be held financially liable for millions and millions in damages. Others will go to prison. Lots of people want this covered up. Todd wants to have a successful site. So he keeps it zipped.

I do not keep it zipped. That’s why I am banned at 15 different sites.

WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT THIS MASSIVE ACT OF FINANCIAL FRAUD. THAT’S HOW WE BRING IT TO AN END. WHEN PRISON SENTENCES ARE ANNOUNCED, IT’S ALL OVER AND WE ALL WIN OUR FREEDOM TO POST HONESTLY RE THE LAST 33 YEARS OF PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH IN THIS FIELD.

Do you see?

We are working at cross purposes, Anonymous.

You want the cover-up to continue and I want to bring it to a full and complete stop.

I am not Todd Tresidder. I am Rob Bennett. My site is not successful today while his is. But I expect my site to be 50 times more successful down the road a piece. I expect to receive a $500 million settlement from the Wall Street Con Men to compensate me for the damages I have suffered during the 12-year cover-up. I expect to become famous all over the internet for being the person who brought this huge act of financial fraud to light and for bringing the economic crisis to an end by doing so.

I like Todd. I think he’s a smart guy and a good guy.

But I am not interested in playing it the way that Todd has played it.

I want to open the entire internet to honest posting on the dangers of Buy-and-Hold strategies. That’s the high-leverage move here. I think we all will learn more when we ALL are posting our sincere beliefs.

I want to know what my good friend Jack Bogle really believes about stock investing. I want to know what Bill Bernstein really believes. I want to know what Robert Shiller really believes. I want to know what Larry Swedroe really believes. I want to know what Scott Burns really believes. I want to know what Todd Tresidder really believes. And on and on and on.

There’s only one way to find out. That’s to apply the same ethical standards to discussions of stock investing as are applied to discussions in every other field of human endeavor.

I want it all, Anonymous. And I think I am going to get it.

I hope that all makes good sense to you, my old friend.

Rob

“I Am Not Going to Be the Only Person Getting Lots of Credit. This Is So Huge That There Is Plenty of Credit to Go Around. Here’s a Tip: The Early Adapters Are Going to Get the MOST Credit. Do You See What I Am Hinting At Here?”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently put to another blog entry at this site:

Which then means that not a single expert has the full combination of being honest, avoiding conspiracies and is knowledgeable……..and that you alone, Rob, is the only one that has all three of those attributes.

I don’t think that what you say here is too terribly far off the mark, Anonymous.

We all have different strong points and different weak points.

There are areas where Bogle’s knowledge base is so far greater than mine that it would be silly to compare the two.

That’s true with Shiller too. And of course with lots of others.

But if you limit the discussion to valuations, I far surpass Bogle. He is not in my league. Not because he is dumb. He is very smart. But he has elected not to learn about valuations. He has deliberately stunted his own growth in this area. So I have been able to race ahead of him. It may be that someday he will start devoting his energies to coming to a better understanding of the effect of valuations and then he will surpass me in that area too. He has chosen until today not to do that.

Valuations happens to be the most important subject matter for the majority of middle-class investors. This is the are where we had a huge advance a number of years back that most experts in the field have elected (not with full intent, but still…) not to pursue. So I have been able to go to the head of the class on an overall basis without going to investing school or managing a huge fund.

It’s been easy for me to avoid conspiracies. I never advocated Buy-and-Hold. So I never had any vested interest in it. I never experienced any psychic pain reading Shiller’s work or exploring the implications of it.

And, yes, I try to be honest. I think these other people do too. I believe that one of the big problems we have is that they feel that I am calling them dishonest when I say that they got the SWR wrong and they become defensive about it because they view it as important to be honest. So I do believe that they try to be honest. I often say that they are “smart and good people.” But their cognitive dissonance does not permit them to be fully honest.

Please remember that I was not fully honest in the days prior to May 13, 2002. I rationalized not speaking up about the errors in the Old School SWR studies for a time. I do not say that I am better than other people. Part of the reason why I have had to play it so honest is that I have had you Goons on my back for 12 years and, if I engage in one tiny bit of dishonesty, I am sure to be burned at the stake for it. My personal circumstances are more than a bit unusual.

The bottom line is pretty much as you say. The work that I present here is the product of a combination of a reasonable amount of intelligence and a reasonable amount of integrity. That happen to be a rarely found combination in InvestoWorld in the year 2014. So, yes, I believe that the investing advice offered here is superior to what is available just about anywhere else.

I wish it weren’t so. Anonymous. I would like to see all my blogger friends offering top-notch investing advice. I would like to see Jack Bogle offering top-notch investing advice. I would like to see Index Universe and Bogleheads Forum and Motley Fool and Early Retirement Forum offering top-notch investing advice.

You know what it takes, right?

We need to hear Bogle give his “I Was Wrong” speech.

That will clear the air for everything. That will launch the national debate we all need to hear.

Then EVERYONE will be offering advice that shows millions of middle-class investors how to reduce the risk of stock investing by 70 percent while increasing returns enough to permit them to retire five to ten years sooner than they ever imagined possible.

You know what, Anonymous? You should stop worrying about me getting the credit for all the wonderful material at this site. If you spent one-tenth of the energy learning from that material and spreading the word, you wouldn’t have to sweat it so much that I will be getting the credit for all this amazing stuff.

I am going to get plenty of credit. I deserve it. I sweated blood getting all this stuff right. I had to fight you Goons with two arms tied behind my back every step of the way. And I never flinched. I never quit. I never even slowed down. I am about as proud of my performance here as you would be proud of yours if the tables were turned.

But I am not going to be the only person getting lots of credit. This is so huge that there is plenty of credit to go around. LOTS of people will be getting lots of credit.

Here’s a tip: The early adapters are going to get the MOST credit.

Do you see what I am hinting at here?

My best wishes to you, old friend.

Rob

“There’s Something Between Telling Truths and Telling Lies. There’s Being Too Afraid to Look at New Truths to Learn What One Needs to Understand to Give Up Old Ones. Things Are Not as Black and White As You Suggest.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:

Rob, for your opinions need to be valid, all of these financial experts either need to be lying, part of a mass conspiracy or not smart enough to have figured things out……………or………….you are wrong.

It’s a combination of those, Anonymous.

We didn’t make a serious effort to figure things out until the mid-1960s. In earlier days, different people had different opinions on how the stock market worked. But it was generally not the subject of sustained and systematic academic study. The Buy-and-Hold Pioneers had the most important breakthroughs in the mid-1960s. It’s only from that point forward that it became reasonable to refer to the study of stock investing as any sort of science.

The Buy-and-Hold Pioneers got one important piece of the puzzle wrong. They showed that short-term timing never works and then jumped to the hasty, false conclusion that long-term timing also does not work. It wasn’t until 1981 that that question was tested by research. Shiller then showed that long-term timing always works and is always required.

From 1981 forward, the experts have been suffering from cognitive dissonance. The idea that timing doesn’t work is a fundamental belief. They are having a very hard time giving that one up. It’s not quite right to say that they are “lying.” They are saying wrong things. They should know that these things are wrong from following the research. But they simply are not able to process what they read in the research. If valuations affect long-term returns, long-term timing is required for any investor hoping to keep his risk profile stable over time. You don’t need to be a genius to see that. But the people who are “experts” in this field are blind to the implications of Shiller’s research because they cannot bear to question the core belief of the investing paradigm around which they have built their careers.

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing, Anonymous. Please check the literature in the field of psychology if you don’t believe me. This is a compelling illustration of the phenomenon. But it is certainly not the first time that we have seen something of this nature take place. It also would help to read the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Several of the academics to whom I wrote referred to this book in trying to explain why the implications of Shiller’s revolutionary finding have been ignored for 33 years.

People have a hard time processing really big changes. The shift from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing is a HUGE change. There’s never been a change this big before in this field. So it is taking some time for people to process it. It’s actually HARDER for people who possess a high level of expertise in the field to process the changes. They have more of an emotional stake in the old paradigm.

I don’t feel comfortable saying that there is a “mass conspiracy.” There was never a day when a group of people got together in a smoke-filled room and decided on a plan to keep knowledge of the implications of Shiller’s findings from millions of middle-class investors. But the Buy-and-Hold Mafia is a real thing. Bloggers who push Buy-and-Hold know that they will not be able to persuade their readers to follow their advice if they permit honest commenting at their blogs. Mutual fund companies know that they will not be able to persuade their clients to remain fully invested in stocks if they learn the realities. Stock brokers know that they will make more money in the short term if people don’t learn about what the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research says. Lots of people benefit in the short-term from keeping millions of middle-class investors in ignorance.

And those people have been acting in the self-interest. They are telling untruths. For example, the claim that “long-term timing is not absolutely necessary” is an untruth. Long-term timing is price discipline. It is absolutely required. But the people who tell this untruth believe the untruth themselves, at least to some extent. They know that Shiller published research casting doubt on the fundamental principles of Buy-and-Hold. But they tell themselves that Buy-and-Hold probably kinda, sorta works. These are generally honest people telling untruths in this one particular area because the knowledge that was brought to light by Shiller is knowledge that millions of people wanted very much to ignore for so long as stocks were insanely overpriced.

Not all untruths are spoken by people with an intent to lie. When people said in pre-Civil Rights days that “blacks are better off with the world being the way it is than they would be if they were given equal rights,” many of them believed it on a least one level of consciousness. It wasn’t only whites that said that sort of thing. Many blacks said that sort of thing. There was a level of consciousness on which they wanted to see change (and there is a level of consciousness on which John Bogle wants to understand the implications of Shiller’s findings). But they were afraid to step into a new world; they were more comfortable staying in the old world despite its imperfections.

There’s something between telling truths and telling lies. There’s being too emotionally afraid to bear looking at new truths to be able to bear giving up old ones.

You Goons tell lies. You Goons have told many, many lies. But even you Goons rationalize your lies. You tell yourself that it is okay to tell them because you have to “protect” investors from hearing views that you believe are dangerous.

The Wall Street Con Men tell partial lies. Bogle says that it is not necessary for investors to change their stock allocations by more than 15 percent even when stock valuations reach insanely high levels. The historical return data shows that investors need to change their stock allocations by 60 percent when stock valuations reach insanely high levels. So what Bogle says is certainly not true. But I don’t think it is quite right to call it a “lie” in the way that the word is usually used. Bogle tells himself that 15 percent is enough. He tells himself that we are not going to see another crash anytime soon. He tells himself that the promotion of Buy-and-Hold was not the primary cause of the economic crisis. People tell themselves all kinds of things when they are working hard to ignore discoveries that they find it painful to confront, Anonymous. Humans do this sort of thing ALL THE TIME.

Bogle behaves with a greater level of dishonesty when he fails to respond to my e-mails seeking help with the Lindauer matter. He has a responsibility to take action when he learns that a discussion board with his name on it is being misused in that manner. I am not sure that this act of dishonesty can be excused with references to the cognitive dissonance phenomenon. That’s something that we are going to have to decide as a society. My job is to report the realities with honesty and charity. The decision as to what sorts of consequences will fall on Bogle as a result of that particular act of dishonesty is not mine to make.

That’s my sincere belief as to what is going on. I won’t say that it is not a strange story. I acknowledge that it is mighty strange. But things are not as black and white as you suggest. There is corruption present in our story. But the amount of corruption is not as great as one would intuitively think to be the case on first hearing that “experts” continue to advocate Buy-and-Hold strategies 33 years after peer-reviewed research was published showing that there is zero chance that they could ever work for even a single long-term investor.

These are big changes. And humans have a hard time processing big changes. And there are particular factors present here that makes these particular big changes particularly hard to process. One special factor is that the new understanding evidences itself only in the long term and for a good number of years Buy-and-Holders experienced a powerful amount of positive short-term feedback re the merit of their investing strategy. Another special factor is that the experts do not feel that they have available to them the option of saying that there are two schools of thought that lead to opposite strategic implications. That’s the truth here. But the experts in this field feel that to speak that truth plainly would cause people to question their expertise. A third special factor is that experts who give bad advice can be held financially liable for losses suffered as a result. That makes people in this field reluctant to acknowledge mistakes.

We are in a transition period. Buy-and-Hold is the past. Valuation-Informed Indexing (which is Buy-and-Hold with the Get Rich Quick element removed) is the future. Those are the realities.

Humans are imperfect creatures. It can take time for them them to acknowledge and correct mistakes. That’s another important reality.

We all should be working together to make the transition to the new model as painless as possible for as many people as possible. We should be trying to help heal wounded egos rather than trying to polarize debates and stir up trouble. That’s my sincere recommendation.

The world is not as simple as you once imagined it to be, Anonymous. You cause a lot of pain by ignoring the complexities, both to millions of others and to yourself.

Rob

“The Vanguard Study Shows That the Valuations Factor Is Huge. It Is the ONLY Significant Factor to Which the Investor Can Respond in an Effective Manner. It Is Financial Malpractice for Any Advisor to Ignore the Valuations Factor (Responsible for 40% of the Market Price, According to Vanguard!) in the Year 2014.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:

Here’s what a team of Vanguard PhDs and CFAs say:

Figure 2 reveals that the predictability of valuation
metrics has only been meaningful at the 10-year
horizon. Even then, P/E ratios have explained only
approximately 40% of the time variation in real
stock returns.

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s338.pdf

Uh oh.

I view the Vanguard paper as being highly supportive of Valuation-Informed Indexing principles. At one point it states that “returns are better stated in a probabilities forecast” and that in the short term returns are not predictable at all. That’s Valuation-Informed Indexing! That’s what I have been saying over and over again since the first day. That’s what the Return Predictor shows. So I have not until now been able to figure out why you keep bringing up this paper.

I re-read your comment above and it hit me. I say over and over again that valuations are 80 percent of the game and the paper says that P/E ratios explain only 40 percent of the time variation in real returns. You are viewing the difference between the 80 percent number and the 40 percent number as a discrepancy.

I am NOT saying that valuations are responsible for 80 percent of the return in any given year. I stand by my statement that understanding and acting on valuations is 80 percent of the strategic stock-investing game.

There are two broad types of factors that affect returns: (1) rational factors; and (2) irrational factors.

The rational factors are all the things that should and do affect stock prices, all of the things that affect the profitability of the underlying businesses. Fama showed that all of these factors are quickly incorporated into the price of stocks. The Valuation-Informed Indexer does not dispute this finding. We endorse it. The Vanguard study is saying that all of these factors added together comprise 60 percent of the price.

The irrational factors are the emotional factors that cause mispricing (overvaluation or undervaluation). These factors are non-business, non-economic factors. They are emotional factors. The significance of these factors at any given point in time is signaled by the P/E10 value.

As an investor there is nothing you can do about the 60 percent of rational factors. So no strategic considerations come into play. If rational factors determined 100 percent of the market price, the market would be efficient (because there would be no emotional factors throwing things off) and Buy-and-Hold would be the ideal strategy. If there were no emotional/non-rational factors to take into consideration, risk would be constant. The investor would always be justified in having an expectation of a long-term return of something near 6.5 percent real.

There IS something you can do about the 40 percent emotional factors.

This study (and every other study that has looked at the question in an even remotely reasonable manner) shows that the market is NOT efficient and that RISK is variable, not constant. Buy-and-Hold does NOT make sense. Investors MUST change their stock allocations in response to big valuation shifts to have any hope whatsoever of keeping their risk profiles roughly constant over time.

The 40 percent of the total return that depends on the P/E10 level is the only portion of the total return to which the investor can respond in a strategic way. The logical response is to increase one’s stock allocation when prices are low and risk is low and to lower one’s stock allocation when prices are high and risk is high. That’s Valuation-Informed Indexing. That’s the entire concept. That’s the approach that lowers stock investing risk by nearly 70 percent, according to the famous Bennett/Pfau research paper (the only research paper so compelling that it caused the Buy-and-Holders to threaten to destroy the careers of the two authors of the paper so desperate was their desire to keep millions of middle-class investors from learning about its findings).

Valuations are not 100 percent of what determines the market price. Rational, economic factors obviously play a huge role. But there is nothing that the investor can do about those factors. They are a given.

The investor MUST change his stock allocation in response to the 40 percent of emotional factors. So far as allocation changes go, valuations are 100 percent of the game. There is no other factor that permits a high degree of predictability, according to the research. So I believe that valuations are the ONLY factor that an investor should be looking at when making the necessary allocation changes.

I reason why I don’t say that valuations is 100 percent of the game is because there are considerations other than getting one’s stock allocation right that come into play. For example, it makes sense to limit one’s fees. If one company has lower fees than another, that will affect the investor’s long-term level of success. That is a non-valuation factor. Another example of a non-valuation factor that matters is that most investors should be going with index funds rather than picking individual stocks. Failing to go with indexes is not a fatal mistake. But I do believe it is a mistake for all investors except those who possess the skill and willingness to do research needed to win at the stock-picking game.

My claim is that getting your stock allocation right is the most important thing (80 percent of the game). And that the investor MUST take valuations into consideration to get his stock allocation even roughly right. If you ignored valuations, you might have gone with a 74 percent stock allocation in 2000 (the Greaney study identified this allocation as “optimal” at all times). If you considered valuations, you probably went with an allocation of about 20 percent. That’s a big difference and getting that one right is going to pay off big time in the long run if valuations are indeed responsible for 40 percent of the market price (that is, if stocks continue performing in the future anything at all as they always have in the past).

The Vanguard study shows that the valuations factor is huge. It is the ONLY significant factor to which the investor can respond in an effective manner. All he needs to do is to look at the P/E10 value and make the required allocation changes. If he fails to do that, he hurts himself big time.

There is no excuse for any investment advisor to fail to stress the importance of valuations in the year 2014. A factor that determines 40 percent of the market price is far too important a factor to be ignored. I would go so far as to say that it is financial malpractice for any advisor to ignore the valuations factor (responsible for 40 percent of the market price according to Vanguard!) in the year 2014. Shiller did not publish his revolutionary research last week or last month or last year. He published it in 1981. That’s 33 years ago!

There are legitimate differences of opinion as to HOW MUCH one should change one’s allocation in response to valuation shifts. That’s why we need a national debate on these questions. We need to get all viewpoints re these matters aired! But the issue of whether valuation-informed allocation changes are required for those seeking to have some realistic hope of long-term investing success has been settled beyond any reasonable dispute. Even Vanguard (the lead promoters of Buy-and-Hold investing strategies) is on board! Bogle hasn’t given his “I Was Wrong” speech yet but the company he founded has published research showing why he needs to make it to come clean about false and deceptive claims he has made in earlier days which have done great financial harm to millions of middle-class investors.

Come clean, Old Saint Jack!

Do it before the close of business tomorrow!

Don’t worry about Mel Lindauer! I will take over the Bogleheads Forum and I will protect you from him!

Rob

“Perhaps Jack Bogle Believes That There Is an 80% Change That Buy-and-Hold Can Work. Or Perhaps It’s 50%. Or 20%. I Don’t Know. But I WANT to Know. And I Know That Jack Is Not Going to Tell Us Until He Comes to the Conclusion That This Massive Act of Financial Fraud Is a Bad Idea.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently put to another blog entry at this site:

The silencing of Academic Researcher Wade Pfau caused me to give up hope that we can overcome our economic problems without bringing the corruption that has come to dominate The Stock-Selling Industry out into the open.

I know that the Buy-and-Hold advocates are smart and good people. There are people who will question this following the next crash. But I have been watching things closely for a long time and I have seen a lot of evidence supporting my belief re this matter. So I am confident that we are dealing with smart and good people. That’s Step One in the logic chain.

The Bennett/Pfau research showed that the advance that we are on our way to achieving is absolutely huge. A 10 percent reduction in risk would be a big deal. 70 percent? That is just flat off the charts. There’s never before been an advance that big.

And it’s not just Rob Bennett who sees that. Wade expressed that thought over and over in his e-mails to me. Wade is a neutral party. He started out with no bias. He liked my stuff. But he also believed in what he learned from the Ph.D. program at Princeton. His e-mails show that, after studying these issues in depth, be became 100 percent convinced that the shift from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing is the biggest advance in the history of personal finance. So we are dealing with something that is positively huge. That’s Step Two in the logic chain.

Opening the internet up to honest posting would bring on the biggest advance in our understanding of how stock investing works ever achieved in our history. And the people who determine whether the internet will be opened up or not (The Wall Street Con Men) are good and smart people. On the surface, those two realities seem to add up to only one possible conclusion — We are going to see a quick opening up of the internet to honest posting.

Yet we have not seen this happen for 12 years now.

So we are missing some piece of the puzzle. There is something going on here that is not obvious, What is it?

It is that the delay in the opening of the internet to honest posting has already gone on too long. Bogle and all the others would LOVE to make the shift to Valuation-Informed Indexing if it could be achieved without anyone incurring huge financial liabilities or going to prison. But things are already too far gone for that.

The Wall Street Con Men and their Internet Goon Squads WANT to help investors. But they can’t. Not without seeing either themselves or their friends incur huge financial liabilities or go to prison. And they just cannot accept taking the path that leads to those events. So they rationalize continuation of the cover-up.

This has obviously been going on since before I came on the scene. I certainly didn’t know it on the morning of May 13, 2002. But the reaction to my famous post revealed the reality. We saw a huge positive reaction from those who hadn’t thought things through and thus liked the idea of enjoying a learning experience. And we saw a huge negative reaction from those who sensed where permitting honest posting on a single topic would lead and who wanted no part of it.

Nothing on the substantive side can change this.

We cannot do any better than showing how to reduce investing risk by 70 percent. That’s the biggest advance in the history of personal finance. No one is ever going to top that.

So worrying about what happens on the substantive side is a little silly at this point. Anyone in this field who achieves a major advance is going to be threatened with career loss by The Buy-and-Hold Mafia. The members of The Buy-and-Hold Mafia are in so deep than they just cannot permit fully honest posting on any important topic.

They are not just engaging in a cover-up at this point. They are engaging in a cover-up of a cover-up of a cover-up of a cover-up. So they are not going to pay attention to reasoned arguments. Things have gone way past the point at which that is possible.

What’s left?

What’s left is to prosecute the financial fraud.

We can elect as a society to do that, permitting us all to move forward together to a world in which we know much more about how stock investing works than we ever have before.

Or we can go over the cliff together following the next price crash.

Those are the only options at this point.

There is no longer any need to prove anything on the substantive side of things because everything that we need to prove has been proven 10 times over.

We won’t be heard because the interests of the millions of middle-class investors and the interests of the Wall Street Con Men and their Internet Goon Squads are now viewed by the Wall Street Con Men and their Internet Goon Squads as being diametrically opposed. The Wall Street Con Men don’t want the millions of middle-class investors learning what the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research says and they are not going to tolerate efforts to get the truth out in an effective way. And that’s that.

But we have laws that we adopted to protect us in these sorts of circumstances.

When we enforce those laws, we all move forward together.

So that’s what matters at this point. We need to enforce the laws of financial fraud against those who use abusive tactics to keep the millions of middle-class investors from learning what they need to learn.

I cannot see into the future. But I remain optimistic. If Shiller is right, we will be seeing another price crash within the next year or two or three. The 2008 crash opened the door A LOT. So there is every reason to believe that the next crash will open the door a lot MORE. That will get us to where we need to go. Once we have enough people concerned enough about where our economy is headed to stand up to you Goons, we are home free. The work on the substantive side is top-notch. Once we have the courage we need to possess to move forward on the process side, it’s all downhill sledding.

I am still going to do what I can to help people understand what the research says. The substantive side is the side that really matters in an ultimate sense.

But I don’t pretend anymore that we can achieve what we need to achieve on the substantive side without first bringing the corruption that has come to dominate this field during the Buy-and-Hold Era out into the open. Things have to be done in a certain order.

We need lots of people reporting honestly what the research says for the millions of middle-class investors to gain confidence in what works. And we are not going to see lots of people speak in honest and clear and informed ways until we do something to rein in the intimidation and deception tactics of the Buy-and-Holders. These issues are confusing enough to a lot of people that they just are never going to be able to make sense of things until we decide as a society to hold the Buy-and-Holders to the same ethical standards that we hold all other people doing work in all other fields of human endeavor.

Exposing the corruption is Job #1. Lots of good stuff will follow from that. But the good stuff cannot come first. Exposing the corruption must come first. The good substantive stuff will come second, after we have reassured people like Wade Pfau that they can do honest work in this field without seeing their careers destroyed by the sorts of individuals who have put up posts in “defense” of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney (and my good friend Jack Bogle?).

That’s why I write about the themes that I write about today, Anonymous. The 12-year saga has taught me that those are the themes that matter most. The substantive stuff matters most in an ultimate sense. But the process-oriented stuff needs to be worked out for constructive discussions on the substantive stuff to begin.

We are working at cross purposes, Anonymous.

The thing that you most do NOT want to see is a discussion of the corruption issues.

That’s the stuff that I MOST want to see at this point in the proceedings. I no longer believe that we can move forward together until the corruption stuff has been publicly examined to the point necessary for us to be able to put it behind us.

I want to see everyone posting honestly. I don’t mean just Valuation-Informed Indexers. I want to see Buy-and-Holders post honestly too.

Jack Bogle doesn’t possess full confidence in Buy-and-Hold. If he did, he would have disassociated himself from the sorts of individuals who have put up posts in “defense” of Mel Linduaer a long, long time ago.

I don’t know what level of confidence in Buy-and-Hold Jack possesses. Perhaps he believes that there is an 80 percent chance that it can work. Perhaps he thinks that the odds are 50-50. Perhaps he believes that there is only a 20 percent chance that Buy-and-Hold can work. I don’t know. But I WANT to know. And I know now that Jack is not going to tell us until he comes to the conclusion that continuation of this massive act of financial fraud is a bad idea. So the focus of all of us who want to bring this to a successful conclusion has to be to bring the Ban on Honest Posting to a full and complete stop by the close of business Monday afternoon.

That’s the difference you are seeing in my posting habits. That’s why I have “gone off the deep end,” in your terminology.

I want everyone on the planet to learn how to reduce the risk of stock investing by 70 percent. The finding of the Bennett/Pfau research is the most important finding in the history of personal finance and I want to spread the word far and wide.

My many Buy-and-Hold friends don’t want that. They feel that they will be held accountable for the 12-year cover-up if the truth comes out now.

I love my Buy-and-Hold friends. I want to see them in a better place.

But I believe that continuation of the cover-up will only put them in a worse place than where they are today.

So I want to bring the cover-up to a close.

That means talking about the corruption, not avoiding the subject.

Even many people who believe in the principle of Valuation-Informed Indexing are avoiding the subject today. They care about the Buy-and-Holders as I do and they don’t want to see them hurt. I think that they are choosing a bad path. I believe that continuation of the cover-up just makes things worse and worse and worse as times goes on.

I hope that helps a bit, Anonymous.

Please take good care.

Rob

“We Should Be Using the Research to Determine HOW MUCH to Change Our Stock Allocations in Response to Valuation Shifts. That’s Where the ‘Conspiracy’ Stuff Comes In. The Buy-and-Holders Do Not Want Millions of Investors to Find Out What the Research Says on This Point. BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM LOOM REALLY, REALLY BAD.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:

These cover up folks are doing a pretty lousy job, given that you’ve recently admitted that most people do consider valuations when making asset allocation decisions, and there really are no Buy and Hold purists. And the fact that Shiller recently won a Nobel prize.

I agree with you that the cover-up folks are doing a lousy job, Anonymous. That’s why I don’t like to use the word “conspiracy.” The cover-up does possess many of the elements of a conspiracy. I am virtually certain that people are going to use that word to describe it following the next price crash. And I can to some extent see where they would be coming from in using that word. But I have never felt entirely comfortable using the word “conspiracy” to describe what is going on here. I prefer the phrase “cognitive dissonance.” I often say that I am okay with describing it as a “conspiracy of ignorance.”

Your point about Shiller winning the Nobel Prize is right on. That’s not evidence of a conspiracy. It’s strong evidence that this is NOT a conspiracy as that word is generally understood. And there is a lot more evidence pointing in the same direction. I learned about the errors in the Old School SWR studies by reading Bogle’s book. If there were a conspiracy, Bogle would be the leader of it. Why the heck would he be saying things in his book that help to expose the conspiracy? That makes no sense.

Similarly, Bernstein said a long time ago that anyone giving thought to using the Old School SWR studies to plan a retirement would have to be out of his or her mind. That’s not something that someone trying to cover up the errors in the Old School SWR studies would say. Again, it just makes no sense.

The other side of the story is that Bogle has for 12 years now not lifted a finger to help us get the Old School SWR studies corrected, despite what he wrote in his book. Nor has Bernstein, despite what he told us in his e-mailed response to Ataloss’s question as to whether Bernstein thought that the Old School studies were analytically invalid.

This isn’t precisely a conspiracy. But it is something.  There is a LOT of funny business going on. What is this cover-up about?

You are looking in the right direction when you note that few investors follow Buy-and-Hold strategies in a dogmatic fashion. Just about everybody (the exception is Eugene Fama!) acknowledges that valuations matter. Judging by that, you would think that we could all get along just fine, right?

But we are obviously NOT all getting along just fine. I hope you will give me that much.

Why? What the heck is the problem?

The problem is that the middle ground on which most investors live today does not make theoretical sense. Buy-and-Hold makes perfect theoretical sense if the market is efficient. Valuation-Informed Indexing makes perfect theoretical sense if valuations affect long-term returns. Splitting the difference (what you call “Strategy B”) makes no theoretical sense.

Splitting the difference possesses great appeal to most investors. Most investors don’t care about theory. They like Buy-and-Hold. The Buy-and-Hold principles sound entirely sensible to most investors. And most experts endorse Buy-and-Hold. So most investors believe that they should generally follow those principles. But they do not feel comfortable following them in a dogmatic way. They feel that valuations must matter. So they choose to tailor Buy-and-Hold to better fit what their common sense tells them is probably the full truth — They follow Buy-and-Hold principles generally but also occasionally ignore the theory to make small adjustments in their stock allocations as a result of concerns they hold about valuations getting out of control.

That’s the reality today. We do not disagree re the reality.

We disagree about what works.

I believe in the original Buy-and-Hold idea that investors should be rooting their investing strategies in the peer-reviewed research. There is no research showing that valuations kinda, sorta matter and kinda sorta don’t matter. The research shows that, if valuations matter, they matter a whole big bunch. If we really believed that valuations matter and weren’t just paying lip service to the idea while generally holding tight to out belief in Buy-and-Hold principles, we would be looking to the research to determine HOW MUCH to change our allocations in response to changes in valuations.

That’s Valuation-Informed Indexing. That’s what I am arguing for.

I don’t say that you are lying when you say that you consider valuations to a small extent. I think you do that. I think that millions of people do that. I agree with you that MOST investors do that.

I don’t think that’s what works.

I certainly agree that we should be investing with valuations in mind. But I also think that we should be using the historical return data and the peer-reviewed research based on that data to determine HOW MUCH to change our stock allocations in response to valuation shifts.

That’s where the “conspiracy” stuff comes in.

The Buy-and-Holders do not want millions of investors to find out what the research says on this point.

Why?

Because it makes them look really, really bad.

People should have been using the research to determine their stock allocations all along and millions of people have lost huge amounts of money because the “experts” in this field told them that that was not absolutely required or, heaven help us all, perhaps not even a good idea. Those experts understand that they are liable for the losses they caused. They pretend to be “experts.” But they are today 33 years behind in their reading of the peer-reviewed research. Huh?

And, in extreme cases like with you Goons, they are guilty of financial fraud and are likely on their way to prison following the next price crash. That group really, really, really does not want the word getting out about the 12-year (or 33-year if you count back to when Shiller published his breakthrough research) cover-up.

I cannot change these realities, Anonymous. And I sure don’t intend to lie about them. I like to think of myself as an honest person. And, even if I didn’t, there are Post Archives! Old Farmer Hocus being persuaded to tell lies about what has been going on for 12 years now is not in the cards. It would help if you would get that foolish dream out of your head.

I have extended the hand of kindness to all my Buy-and-Hold friends. But I am not in a position to lie about what has been going on for 12 years now and I like to think that I would not be inclined to lie even if I were in a position in which doing so would benefit me.

You need to come clean.

Bogle needs to come clean.

J.D. Roth needs to come clean.

Mike Piper needs to come clean.

And on and on and on.

There is no other way.

I am telling you not just what is best for me and for the millions of middle-class investors. I am telling you what is best for you and for the Wall Street Con Men.

Everything needs to come out in the open. All the lies have to be acknowledged. All the Bans on Honest Posting need to be lifted. All the civil and criminal trials need to be held and brought to completion.

We need to put all this ugly stuff behind us so that we can move on to the wonderful learning experiences that we have been enjoying for 12 years now but that we have not thus far felt that we could share with the millions of middle-class investors because it would upset the Wall Street Con Men and their Internet Goon Squads too much for them to learn the realities. This field does not exist solely for the benefit of the Wall Street Con Men and their Internet Good Squads. It exists in part for the benefit of the millions of middle-class investors who need access to accurate and honest reports on what the peer-reviewed research says to be able to finance their retirements effectively.

Do you see?

What I am describing is what is best for ALL of us. We are all in the same boat. We need to knock off the funny business and begin moving forward TOGETHER.

There are things that can be done to make the transition less painful for the Wall Street Con Men and for you Goons. It makes sense for us to do those things. I am 100 percent happy to help out in any way possible.

BUT WE MUST OPEN UP THIS FIELD TO PEOPLE OF INTEGRITY. AND WE MUST BEGIN LETTING THE PEOPLE IN THIS FIELD WHO POSSESS INTEGRITY AND LONG TO EVIDENCE IT IN THE WORK THEY DO TO DO SO.

We MUST do this. This is NOT optional. This is 100 percent imperative.

Call the support of or indifference to dishonesty a “conspiracy” if that works for you. Call it “cognitive dissonance” if, like me, you are not quite able to accept that so many good and smart people could get themselves involved in so awful and damaging a conspiracy. The terminology you use is not what matters most here. What matters most here is that we bring the funny business to an end.

The funny business must come to an end. That’s the bottom line here. That must happen by the close of business today.

Can I count on your support, my old friend?

Rob