I agree with you that I have had the same basic message delivered to me from numerous people (many of them people for whom I feel a good bit of respect) on numerous different occasions, Evidence.

I of course acknowledge that in ordinary circumstances that would be a sign that I should be paying heed to that message.

And I agree that the people who deliver this message do not seem to feel that I am paying heed to the message.

So we are in agreement re all those points.

All that I am able to say in response is that I have zero idea what it is that in practical terms these people would have me do.

I go to a board and I make a lot of friends there. Someone puts up a post recommending one of the Old School SWR studies. I note that the study is analytically invalid and that a valid study generates very different numbers. The friends of the guy who recommended the analytically invalid study go nuts. What is it that people are suggesting that I do different? How could I make the point that needs to be made (that the Old School studies get the numbers wrong) without “shoving it down people’s throats”? What is a soft way of saying “the numbers in your retirement study are wildly off the mark?”

I don’t think there is a soft way of saying it.

I think that the root problem here is that the question of whether valuations affect long-term returns is so fundamental that there is no compromise position halfway between the “Yes, they do” position and the “No, they do not” position. Either one extreme position (Buy-and-Hold) is right or the other extreme position (Valuation-Informed Indexing) is right. This is an either/or situation.

I didn’t create the situation, Evidence. And I have bent over backwards to be warm and friendly and respectful of the people taking the other position. I am perfectly happy to be friends with them regardless of their investing beliefs. I often say that I believe that they really believe what they say on the substantive issues and that they are smart and good people. All that I feel comfortable doing.

It seems to me that you are asking me to do something more. You are asking me to keep my mouth shut re the errors in the Old School studies even though I believe strongly that millions of middle-class investors are going to suffer busted retirements if these demonstrably false claims are not corrected. It is a mathematical calculation that we are talking about here. There are right and wrong answers with mathematical calculations. No?

I think compromise is good. I think diplomacy is good. I think every community member has a right to his or her opinion. I feel a great deal of respect and affection for many Buy-and-Holders. But I do not feel that it would be right for me to post dishonestly on the numbers that my friends are using to plan their retirements. I don’t see that one as even being a close call.

I am going to keep listening to the sorts of comments you make reference to here, Evidence. If one of the people putting forward one of these comments is able to spell out in practical terms how they would have me post and what they recommend does not require me to give up my personal integrity, I am going to jump on the suggestion.

As of today, I do not feel that any of the people who have made comments along these lines has done this. So I feel that I have no choice but to continue posting honestly while reaching down deep to show as much human charity toward these people as I can without violating the demands that my conscience makes on me.

I could be wrong. I have no problem whatsoever with people saying that I could be wrong. I have a very big problem indeed with people saying that the price for admission to the boards is that I agree to say things that I do not believe. If I am not going to be permitted to post honestly, I think it is better than I not post at all.

Rob

[...] 13, 2009. The e-mail was sent in reply to an e-mail that Carl sent me earlier the same day (which was described in an earlier blog entry). I will describe Carl’s response in a forthcoming blog [...]