Set forth below is the text of an e-mail that I sent to Mike Piper (author of the Oblivious Investor blog) on November 6, 2010, in response to the e-mail set forth in yesterday’s blog entry.
Mike:
Thanks for letting me know where you stand.
I’d be grateful if you would link to the article next week. It is of course the substance that people most need to know about (whether they find themselves being persuaded or not).
I am of course sympathetic to your unease about being involved in the nastiness. I know that there are many good people with an interest in this subject who feel as you do. For a long time I felt that way myself. I’ll write a few words here trying to explain why I feel that those of us trying to take things in a positive direction ultimately have no choice but to get involved in small ways re the nastiness as a means of bringing it quickly to a final and complete stop.
There of course was no “back and forth name calling” in that thread. All of the name calling came from one direction. What I did was to stand up (in a perfectly civil way, given the vileness of the attacks at issue here) in defense of a friend of mine who just happens to be the most valuable contributor in the history of both the Retire Early and Indexing discussion-board communities.
John had just retired when our discussions of safe withdrawal rates began. So he was able to devote himself full time to doing the research we needed to learn some very important things about how investing works in the real world. He elected to spend 50 hour weeks for over seven years helping his fellow community members with their questions without receiving one dime of compensation.
We all have a responsibility to protect people like that when they are under attack. We all form friendships on the internet when we interact with people for a long time. It is unnatural for us to fail to speak up when the hateful things that have been said about John are said about someone we care about. When we fail to speak up (and, yes, I too was afraid to speak up for a long time), we become sub-human. I want no part of it after what I have seen it do to many friends of mine. And I have a strong confidence that, if you look at your behavior everywhere except on the internet, you will see that you do not tolerate this degree of ugliness in other areas of your life either.
The internet is a powerful communications medium of the future. We can use it to learn things we could never learn before (because humans learn from talking things over and the internet permits a level of sharing of ideas that was never possible before). However, the very thing that is good about the internet (the learning process it enables) is viewed as a threat by the small number who feel such intense envy when others learn that they are willing to twist themselves into very ugly shapes to block such learning processes from going forward. The 90 percent of us who have a desire to use the internet for positive and constructive purposes have a decision to make. Are we going to let this dark side of human nature destroy all the good that could be achieved through this new communications medium? Or are we going to insist that the rules of human interaction that were developed during the first several thousand years of civilized human life apply on the internet as they have applied everywhere else during those many centuries?
I believe that we are going to need to permit the rules of civilized life to apply on the internet as well. There are laws that protect people from death threats in all other places in which humans engage in discourse. Those laws need to be made applicable to the internet. There are laws that protect people from defamation in all other place in which humans engage in discourse. Those laws need to be made applicable to the internet. There are laws that protect people’s businesses from attack in all other places in which humans engage in discourse. Those laws need to be made applicable to the internet.
I understand that you would be prefer not to “be involved.” I would prefer not to “be involved” too. So would the thousands of members of the Retire Early and Indexing discussion-board communities who have expressed a desire that honest posting be permitted on our boards. We are all “involved” whether we happen to like the idea or not.
I put forward the post that pointed out the errors in the Old School Safe Withdrawal Rate Studies on May 13, 2002. There are thousands just in our community whose retirements could have been saved if the research that John did in response to the community’s strong positive reaction to that post had promptly been given the publicity that it obviously merited. There are millions in the larger community of investors in the same circumstances. Many, many. many people were done huge financial harm.
My guess is that there are going to be thousands of lawsuits filed in coming days as a result of the cover-up of the research that showed that Passive Investing does not work in the real world, research that would have been widely publicized in the Summer of 2002 had there not been Goon posters threatening physical violence on anyone who posted honestly on these matters as a means of destroying the wonderful board community at which these findings were first brought to light.
There is also the matter of the reputations of the “experts” involved in the discussions. John Bogle has told us that he looks at the Vanguard Diehards board on an almost weekly basis. The most vicious Smear Campaign in the history of the internet was waged at that board for nearly two year running. There were hundreds of threads destroyed by Mel Lindauer and his Goon Squad. Do you not think that learning about this is going to enrage people whose businesses have failed or whose marriages have failed or whose retirements have failed because they could not for many years gain access to the information they needed to save their businesses or their marriages or their retirements? You write about these topics on a daily basis, Mike. You make reference to John Bogle in your writings, you make reference to Lindauer in your writings. You are involved.
I don’t want you to be involved. So our ultimate goal is the same. Our difference is over how to get things to where we both want things to be.
I believe that the answer is to bring the ugliness to a quick and immediate stop. That cannot happen until the Goons come to discover that there are CONSEQUENCES that follow from engaging in the sort of behavior that they have engaged in. That’s the missing element in the story. That is what needs to change to make life 100 times better for each and every one of us (including the Goons themselves, to be sure).
The idea that we could permit death threats without having any consequences apply was an INSANE idea. When we elected as a community to permit death threats without having any consequences apply we elected to live in hell forever after. We made a terrible, terrible, terrible mistake. We need to reverse that terrible mistake. That is the way to a better and more fruitful and more loving and more human path.
I want the ugliness brought to a quick and immediate stop. I wanted that on the afternoon of May 13, 2002. I said so publicly at that time and I have said so on numerous occasions since. My take had always been that those of us who want the ugliness brought to a quick and immediate stop should reach out the hand of kindness as far as we can possibly reach it without crossing the line that we may never cross and agreeing to post dishonestly on safe withdrawal rates or other important investment topics. We need to mix as much charity as possible with as much honesty as is absolutely demanded of us. I don’t see any other way that this ugliness can be brought to an end without causing even greater damage to our entire economic and political system.
We’re all involved, Mike. Anyone with any interest in the subject of investing is involved. Anyone who cares about John Bogle’s many wonderful contributions and the reputation he is going to have in future days is involved. Anyone who has a blog (on investing or any other topic) is involved. Anyone who wants to see the U.S. economic and political system survive its current troubles is involved.
Anyone who is human or cares about other humans is involved. A man is not an island. We all benefit from our connections with others. When we stop caring about the others to the extent we need to stop caring about the others to permit this sort of ugliness to continue, we sacrifice what makes us human in doing so.
You are in a position to influence the future of investing in a very powerful and very positive way, Mike. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it will be a scary thing to do. I have sympathy for you re that reality but I do not have the power to change the reality. It is what it is. That’s so for all of us.
There is no escape from this for anyone who has elected to use the internet to help people learn the realities of stock investing. I have learned this lesson over and over and over again over the course of the past seven years.
I will always stand ready to work in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect and affection with anyone who tries to deal with these matters in a constructive and positive way. That’s what I can contribute, I have been offered “deals” in which I would agree to post dishonestly on safe withdrawal rates in return for a lifting of the Campaign of Terror. No can do. I think of many of the people who I have met on the boards and blogs as friends. A failed retirement is a serious life setback. I am going to continue to post honestly on what the historical data says about safe withdrawal rates.
If that one is worked out, all the rest follows. All of the wonderful insights that our communities have developed over the past seven years become available to us because of our willingness to accept what the historical data says about safe withdrawal rates. If we tell the truth about that one thing, we will end up telling the truth about many, many things. It may well be that I will learn as a result of the national debate on the realities of stock investing that will follow that I have gotten some things wrong. If that is how it goes, I will of course express gratitude to those who taught me what I needed to know. If those on the other side approach the upcoming national debate in the same spirit, we cannot lose. This will become a win/win/win/win/win. It’s rare when one of those comes along. We should not pass up the golden opportunity that has presented itself to us.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns either now or at any later date. In the event that you elect to take a pass on the process issues, I of course understand and remain grateful for your willingness to let your readers know about the article linking to the 20 studies. I would love to see some reaction to them. I know that we may not see that but I cannot help but be excited about the possibility that we might. It’s by generating such reactions that we take our ever developing understanding of the realities of stock investing to new places and thereby become empowered to learn even more in the days that follow.
To learning experiences!
Rob
In the email from Mike that you published yesterday it seemed like he was prepared to link to one of your articles. As we know, that never happened.
I wondered what it was that changed Mike’s mind.
I have now been enlightened.
Thank you Rob.
In the email from Mike that you published yesterday it seemed like he was prepared to link to one of your articles.
I agree.
I wondered what it was that changed Mike’s mind. I have now been enlightened.
If you are ever feeling charitable enough to take the effort to put the explanation into words and thereby fill me in, I would be grateful, Evidence.
Rob
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
My sense is that it is the contents of the email that you sent him, and which you have reproduced in today’s blog, which lead to him decide that including a link to one of your articles would not be in the best interests of the community that gathers at his blog to discuss investing matters in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect and affection with anyone who tries to deal with these matters in a constructive and positive way.
Do we permit honest posting on safe withdrawal rates or do we not? That’s always been the rub, Evidence.
I am confident that Mike would prefer to permit honest posting. Mel Lindauer is not going to be one tiny bit happy if he does. John Greaney is not going to be one tiny bit happy if he does.
Any thoughts of how we deal with this obstacle that has been placed in the way of our efforts to move on to a better place? We all want to learn how to invest more effectively, Evidence. We all want to bring the economic crisis to an end. We all want all this ugliness put behind us forevermore. I think it would be fair to say that those three are universals.
But what do we do about the Lindauer matter and the Greaney matter? I proposed something a long time ago. I proposed that they be removed and that those who post in “defense” of them be removed. Do you have any better ideas?
Rob
I have made suggestions in the past, you have ignored them. My sense is that you are comfortable continuing on the path that you have chosen and that trying something different is outside your comfort zone.
Okay, Evidence.
Thanks for taking some time out of your day to try to help us all out.
Rob
Rob,
I’ve made, I think, three or so comments on your blog here total, asking what I thought were perfectly sensible questions about your investment philosophy and your methods of espousing it.
In return, you’ve called me a Goon (capitalized, no less) and told me I’m consumed by negative emotions.
I’m not sure how you arrived at either conclusion, but I assure you I’m merely an investor who came across your unique approach of posting on a number of investment sites.
From what I’ve read, it seems that you have concocted an elaborate theory to explain why your work hasn’t found the level of acceptance you think it should. As best I understand, dozens of the world’s largest financial institutions, our political leaders, the financial journalism community, the financial blogging community, and a group of highly motivated posters to financial blogs and websites have all conspired to thwart you at every turn.
You hold this belief despite the fact that a) you have been told by dozens of people numerous times that the problem is not what you are saying, but rather the manner in which you say it; and b) on any given day on any number of internet sites I see dozens of people discussing precisely the issues that you claim the cadre described above has banned.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Occam’s Razor, but it states that if there are multiple explanations for a particular situation, the simplest one is most likely to be true.
As you prepare to enter the ninth year of your efforts, might I suggest that it might be constructive for you to consider that it’s possible that the reason you’ve encountered so much frustration so far is not that thousands of disparate individuals and institutions have somehow banded together with the sole purpose of keeping a rather anonymous blogger at bay, but rather because, as you’ve apparently been told quite often, there’s a flaw in your methods of communicating it?
As Einstein famously said, the definition of insanity is attempting the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I hope you consider that (and all the above) in the friendly manner in which it was offered as you prepare to launch yourself into the ninth year of this particular endeavor.
There is no soft way to say “the numbers in your retirement study are wildly wrong,” Curious.
I am all for diplomacy. I am all for charity. I am all for letting the other guy have his say. I am all for going along to get it along. I feel great respect and affection for most of the Buy-and-Hold advocates I have come to know in my travels.
But I also feel affection and respect for the many fine community members I have come to know who have put their trust in discredited retirement studies and calculators and who are likely to experience the worst imaginable life setbacks in days to come as a result. Those studies and calculators should have been corrected back in May 2002.
It is the failure to correct the studies and calculators that has caused all the trouble. To report retirement numbers that you know to be wrong is an act of deception on an important matter. The humans who engage in these acts of deception obviously come to feel very bad about themselves as a result. The humans who “defend” the decisions not to correct the studies and calculators also come to feel very bad about themselves. I am trying to bring all that to an end. Because it must come to an end if our board and blog communities are to achieve their potential.
I am saying that we need to learn how to discuss retirement planning and other important investment-related topics like the humans that we are. Humans have a sense of humor. Humans know that they sometimes get things wrong and need to go back and correct mistakes. Humans care about their friends and neighbors and co-workers and fellow community members and do not want to hurt them. Humans care about their own retirements. Humans enjoy learning. Humans are happy to let the other guy have a say after they have had their say. Humans in this particular country care about free speech. Humans disdain smear campaigns and deception and intimidation and word games. Humans are repulsed by threats of physical violence.
We all have something to share in these discussions, Curious. There are things that I know about investing that you do not and there are things that you know about investing that I do not. We have to figure out a way to permit every single community member who has something helpful to say to feel safe in coming forward and saying it. We need to hear from the many people who think Buy-and-Hold is the cat’s pajamas. And we need to hear from those who think that Buy-and-Hold is the worst strategy ever concocted by the human mind. And we need to hear from all the shades of opinion in-between those two extremes.
I am willing and happy to help in any way to smooth the transition for every one of our fine board and blog communities. I’m here, just ask. I am not willing to post dishonestly on safe withdrawal rates. Please get that. That’s out. It is never going to happen. If you are working from a premise that someday, someway that is going to happen, you are living in a fantasy world. I have tried to be careful never to suggest that the door is even a tiny bit open on this point because I think that all community members need to be aware of the realities they are dealing with if they are to make positive and constructive and life-affirming decisions as to how to proceed.
You come up with something in which everyone gets to post his or her honest views on every investing topic (including safe withdrawal rates!), and you and I will shake hands and walk off together as friends into a happy and enriching future. If we get over that hump, I am confident that in time we will make it all the way. So I can tell you in advance that I am going to sign up for anything that you come up with so long as it permits honest posting on safe withdrawal rates.
If we cannot as a society figure out a way that honest posting can ever again be permitted on safe withdrawal rates, then I am afraid that we are doomed and not one word that has been said over these eight years makes a whit of difference. I am a willful optimist and I refuse to go there. If that’s where we are headed, then that’s where we are headed, and at least I will be able to say that I tried to take it the other way.
I don’t believe that that’s where we are headed. I believe that we are headed to a place that is a far better place for every single community member. I believe that we are standing on the threshold of The Golden Age of Middle-Class Investing. That’s good news for me. That’s good news for you. That’s good news for everybody. Why so glum, Goon Man? We should be celebrating! we should be singing about our good fortune! We should be dancing the night away!
The thing that needs to be worked out is that we need to come up with a way to permit honest posting on safe withdrawal rates. Not just for Rob Bennett. For every single community member. That’s been the hump going back to the first day. When we do that, we go back to being the humans that we all deep in our hearts very much want to be. That’s when the real fireworks (the good kind!) begin!
Rob
It might provide you a bit of comfort to categorize me as a “Goon,” Rob, but I assure you that I’m nothing more than an individual investor who frequents personal finance blogs and sites from time to time. As a matter of fact, I’m probably little different than the readers that blog owners have told you they hear from whenever they allow you to post indiscriminately on their sites.
This will be my last comment on this post (I hope), and I’m sure it’s futile. Regardless, I wanted to draw your attention to a possible disconnect in your logic.
In your response, you conflate your posts with “posting honestly,” stating that a decision to restrict your access to a site is a decision to ban honest posting. You hold this view despite the fact that on hundreds (if not thousands) of sites I can find vigorous debate and discussion about both safe withdrawal rates and the long-term outlook for stock market returns.
Granting the possibility that the proprietors of these hundreds of sites and the thousands (millions?) of posters and readers that congregate there have somehow all agreed to keep you at bay, doesn’t logic dictate that it’s much more likely that you’ve been asked to refrain from posting at a handful of these boards for the simple reason that’s been given time and again? That is, readers and site owners find your style of communicating your message annoying.
Not the substance of your message, mind you. Again, I see these topics debated daily. No, I’m referring solely to how you get your message across. Here I’m referring — in part — to your tendency to make outrageous statements without (and this is the important part) any evidence to support them.
It’s easy to draw attention to one’s message by making such statements (“Infants should never breastfeed!” for instance). But without any sort of logic or evidence behind such claims, readers will quickly (and correctly) learn to dismiss both the argument and the person putting it forth. That, I believe, is where you find yourself currently. Blog readers perhaps intrigued by your initial claims become disinterested when no real evidence is offered, and then become annoyed when the claim is repeated time and time and time again, always outrageous but also always seeming to fail the sniff test. The onus of proof lies always with the person making the assertion.
Finally, I would offer that further proof of the fact that it is your style and not your message that is found so disagreeable is the fact that investors seeking to engage you in discussion on these topics have a ready home right here on your blog. If the audience for such discussions were truly as broad as you claim, where are they? The fact that your interactions here seem to be limited to the same handful of folks whom you call “Goons” — and not the thousands of investors you claim are interested in these debates — would seem to be the final verdict.
Again, you may feel free to label me a “Goon” and dismiss my observations out-of-hand. But I mean to offer this solely as constructive criticism, under the assumption that after making what appears to be so little progress after eight years, you might be truly interested in trying to figure out why that is so, and doing something about it.
It’s not about “posting dishonestly,” Rob. It’s about being able to back up what you’re saying. If you’re able to do that, the readers will follow. If you’re not, well, I think the evidence is clear what happens then.
That is, readers and site owners find your style of communicating your message annoying.
I’ve never had a single post removed on grounds that it was abusive, Curious. I’ve been banned from about 15 places and yet I have never had a single post removed. In fact, I’ve had scores of people comment on how polite and warm I am in my comments. Several have expressed amazement that I have been able to remain so gentle and kind in my comments given that a number of the Buy-and-Hold dogmatics have been abusive in the extreme and have on several occasions even threatened physical violence.
So my “Style” has received an “A+” grade, while my message has received an “F” from the dogmatics.
The bottom line is that there is no one today who argues that the Old School SWR studies get the numbers right. Even the Goons now acknowledge that they contain no adjustment for valuation! Yet not one of the Old School studies has been corrected to this day!
My “style” is to point that out. That’s the thing that is banned.
And that’s the thing that is desperately needed. It is only by getting the studies prepared under the Buy-and-Hold Model corrected that we can bring about a consensus as to just how dangerous Buy-and-Hold is. And it is only by gaining a consensus re the dangers of Buy-and-Hold that we can move to consideration of more realistic strategies.
Saying “oh, gee, I may not personally use the Old School studies to plan my retirement” does not get the job done. We need to be warning people about how dangerous these studies are and insisting that they be corrected.
You try saying that at the Bogleheads.org board and I guaranty you that you will soon be banned regardless of what “style” you employ in saying it. My style is to report the numbers honestly. That is the thing that the Buy-and-Hold dogmatics cannot tolerate.
The reason is obvious. An accurate reporting of what the academic research has been saying for 30 years now means the end of Buy-and-Hold. “Good Riddance!” says Rob in the “style” that has endeared him not to Buy-and-Hold Dogmatics all over the internet.
Rob
You’re right, of course, Rob. What was I thinking.
Keep on keeping on, and steady as she goes. With just a bit more determination and patience, at some point folks will flock to hear outrageous statements made out of whole cloth with little thought or evidence to support them.
I predict that there will be a day when you will be our biggest booster, Curious. There is not one person alive who benefits from investing ineffectively. That’s our secret edge!
Take it easy until next time, my friend.
Rob