My last blog entry set forth the text of an e-mail that I sent to Carl Richards, author of the Behavior Gap blog, when he announced that he was banning honest posting on the flaws of the Buy-and-Hold Model at his blog. Carl has not given me permission to post the entire text of his response, sent on November 13, 2009. So I will quote only a small number of his words below. I will post the full text of my reply in a forthcoming blog entry.
Carl began his reply by suggesting that I “take a big breath and relax.” He said that I was not in fact banned, that he only imposed a temporary ban so that we could talk the issue over in e-mail correspondence (he subsequently made the ban permanent). He then asserted that, on the issue of Buy-and-Hold, “I agree with you! Counter to your insane accusation below, I have read everything I can about Valuation-Informed Indexing, and I agree with you that buy & hold passive investing is extremely problematic, BUT that is not the point of MY blog.” He maintained that the 42 comments that I had put to his blog “are the same argument” and that “it is clear you are looking for a fight.”
Carl added that “I value and respect the passion, hard work and research that you have put into this very important issue, BUT that is what YOUR blog is for. It seems to me that you keep running into the same issue over and over again. My suggestion is that it is not the message, but the way in which you are trying to force it down people’s throats.” He concluded by saying that it was not his intent to ban honest posting but to encourage good discussion “by asking one person to tone it down a bit.”
He also offered the observation that “what you are doing has HUGE value” that is “getting buried by the way in which you are doing it.”
Evidence Based Investing says
My suggestion is that it is not the message, but the way in which you are trying to force it down people’s throats.” He concluded by saying that it was not his intent to ban honest posting but to encourage good discussion “by asking one person to tone it down a bit.”
He also offered the observation that “what you are doing has HUGE value” that is “getting buried by the way in which you are doing it.”
It is amazing how consistent is the message you receive from blog and forum owners.
It is amazing how you ignore it each and every time.
Rob says
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
JonathonE says
I think bannings are truly unfortunate, although it obviously is the prerogative of the website’s owner. My question to you, Mr. Bennett, is simple: Why don’t you hold these discussions on this, your own website?
Rob says
I think bannings are truly unfortunate
We disagree, Jonathan. If a site owner fails to ban those who violate the community norms, the community will be brought down to the level of the lowest participating in it. What purpose is served by repulsing all of the solid contributors by pandering to those who only produce sewage? I think a site owner has a responsibility to stick up for those who build his or her community.
although it obviously is the prerogative of the website’s owner.
I would say that it is the responsibility of the site owner to honor his promises to those who build his community. He shouldn’t be enforcing or failing to enforce the rules of the site for his own personal benefit or to help his efforts to sell something. He should be honoring and protecting the community that helps build his site. He should be focused on his obligations to others.
Why don’t you hold these discussions on this, your own website?
I talk about these matters here all the time. I think that we should be having honest discussions about the need to bury Buy-and-Hold ten feet in the ground and to rebuild our economic and political systems at every personal finance site and at ever personal finance blog on the internet. The more the merrier, so far as I am concerned. I see the idea of launching a national debate on the flaws of Buy-and-Hold as a win/win/win, with no possible downside.
Rob