“I Am Sorry to Take This Unprecedented Act”

I recently wrote a Guest Blog Entry for the Lazy Man and Money blog entitled “Passive Investing Is a Strategy for Extremists.”

Juicy Excerpt: I say that it is the idea that we should not even consider the idea of making allocation changes in response to big price changes that is extremist. We all should have been debating the different possible options all along. Some might have argued for zero percent stock allocations at those price levels, others for 25 percent stock allocations, others for 50 percent stock allocations. That would have been healthy. That way we all could have heard the arguments for all the possible viewpoints and decided for ourselves what stock allocation made sense for us. That debate never took place. The popularity of Passive Investing took the idea off the table. Most “experts” said that no allocation change at all was needed and most otherwise moderate middle-class investors went along.

The blog entry generated a number of helpful comments. It also generated a number of abusive comments from the Greaney Goons. For background on our problems with the Greaney Goons, please take a look at the article at the “Banned at Motley Fool!” section of the site entitled Internet Harassment by “Defenders” of the Conventional Retirement Studies. We have seen the Goons attack a number of blogs since I began posting guest blogs on the errors in the Old School safe-withdrawal-rate studies and on the failings of the Passive Investing model in general.

In response to the attacks, I put up a thread at the Money Bloggers Network forum entitled “We Need Protection from Goon Posters.” This post urged that the personal finance bloggers who congregate there unite in self-protection from the sorts of tactics employed by those who have destroyed numerous Retire Early and Indexing discussion boards over the first seven years of our discussions. The owner of the Lazy Man blog, who is a moderator at the site, took great offense to this post. He had the entire discussion thread removed from the site and removed the guest blog entry and all comments to it from his site. He said: “The only way I know how to stop it is to unpublish the post. Which is what I have done. I’m sorry to take this unprecedented act on my site.”

This is of course yet another extraordinary development in a long-running saga jam-packed full of them. I plan to post an article to the “Banned at Motley Fool!” section containing the text of my posts to the thread (I cannot post the comments of other contributors, but in many cases it will be possible to gain a general sense of the nature of the comments posted by reading my responses). I also will try to have the “Passive Investing Is An Extremist Strategy” blog entry placed at another blog and will provide a link here to the full blog entry when it is again available on the internet.

I’ve said it before and my guess given my experience with this matter is that I will have cause in future days to to say it yet again — Yowsa!


  1. Evidence Based Investing says

    You could of course publish the “Passive Investing Is An Extremist Strategy” blog entry at this site.

  2. Rob says

    Your article appears to have been moved or deleted

    That’s correct, Bob. It was deleted.


  3. Rob says

    You could of course publish the “Passive Investing Is An Extremist Strategy” blog entry at this site.

    Yes, that’s so, Evidence.

    We need to get more people involved if we are going to turn this economy around. My preference is to have the article appear at another site and bring in new community members that way.

    I think it was an important article. I think it will prove to be worth the wait it will take until you can read all of it.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Comments links could be nofollow free.