Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail that I sent to Academic Researcher Wade Pfau on April 7, 2012. I sent a follow-up e-mail one hour later. The text is set forth below.
I thought of a way to reduce the long response I sent a few minutes ago to something much shorter. So I thought I would pass that along. Then I promise to shut up.
You sent an e-mail to the Trinity authors asking them to correct their study.
Wade responded the same day. He said: “‘I’m glad to see you’ve pulled back your troops as it seemed you’ve been trying to start a war with me when we really have nothing to be fighting about.”
The e-mail continued: I” don’t have any problem with what you wrote in your last message, except that I have a slightly different view about the issue of correcting old studies. The way I think that is best done is to provide new research to replace the old research. On the issue of old school SWR studies, that is what I tried to do with my August 2011 Journal of Financial Planning article. Now it is just a matter of getting the word out about it, and the results from that article have been featured in the Wall Street Journal and SmartMoney. In June I’ve been invited to speak to a group of high level people from a bunch of different finance companies about this same topic. I’m doing what I can.”
Wade explained: “You asked about why I contacted the Trinity authors. I’m not sure why you even feel a need to ask. It seems like you’ve decided in your mind that I’m a Goon when I’ve not changed my outlook on this or any other relevant issue. The reason I contacted them was to list some concerns I had (valuations, fees, 30 year time period, etc) about whether the results of their study are applicable for recent retirees. I didn’t think the Trinity study is helpful for recent retirees. Now, I think even more strongly than before that the Trinity study is not helpful.
He concluded: “This is why I’m so confused about your attitude toward me since the Bill Bengen incident.”