Set forth below are the texts of six comments that I recently put to a discussion thread at this blog:
There is no conspiracy.
Former Financial Analysts Journal Editor Rob Arnott copied Jack Bogle on his e-mail to me saying that my investing ideas are “sound” and sharing with me his own experiences with intimidation being employed to stop academic researchers from doing the research that we all need to see to learn how stock investing really works. Jack did not respond.
I don’t think “conspiracy” is precisely the correct word to describe what is going on here. But there is certainly some sort of funny business going on when Jack Bogle does not offer a public response to an e-mail of that nature. No?
Please explain Bogle’s failure to respond to Rob Arnott’s e-mail from your perspective that there is no “conspiracy” going on re these matters.
You are delusional.
You were one of the ones saying that on the morning of May 13, 2002, when I put up my famous post pointing out the errors in the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies.
In the past year or two, every major publication in this field has acknowledged that I was right.
Is it Rob Bennett who is delusional? Or is it the “experts” who continue to try to “defend” Buy-and-Hold in the face of 32 years of peer-reviewed academic research showing that there is precisely zero chance that this strategy can ever work for a single long-term investor?
You have been banned from a large number of boards.
And I have seen a good percentage of the site administrators who banned me write me notes APOLOGIZING for the bans and telling me that they see great value in my work.
As to not getting responses, no one owes you anything.
Jack Bogle owes every investor who has followed a Buy-and-Hold strategy (and they number in the millions) an explanation of why he did not correct the errors he made in development of the strategy promptly following Shiller’s publication of the research showing them to be errors, Sparky.
With great influence comes great responsibility.
Name any crackpot idea and you usually find that 2 or 3% of the population will support that position. That is really not a great percentage.
No one employs death threats and board bannings and tens of thousands of acts of defamation and threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs to “defend” their ideas from the challenges raised by crackpots, Sparky. Your own behavior tells the tale here.
you seem to be viewed as a nuisance.
I am viewed as a nuisance and a lot worse by people who are still turning a buck through the promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies 32 years after the peer-reviewed academic research showed that there is precisely zero chance that such a strategy could ever work for even a single long-term investor. That much is certainly fair to say, Sparky.