Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:
Notice the lack of progress you have made in getting any serious attention on any site that is considered mainstream.
Those are the ones that you Goons patrol. Those are the ones where we need to see honest posting to bring down Buy-and-Hold.
Todd Tresidder’s Financial Mentor site is not a mainstream site. He tells the truth there. He warned people of the dangers of the Old School SWR studies. He points out all the time that valuations affect long-term returns.
Todd is not banned anywhere. Todd is liked by everyone. Todd gets speaking engagements at the Financial Bloggers Conferences all the time.
What’s the difference between Todd and me?
When Todd wrote his post on the errors of the Old School SWR studies, I put up some long comments pointing out how the Buy-and-Holders had been engaging in abusive tactics to cover up the errors in those studies for years. Todd called me on the phone and asked that I not put up such posts. He doesn’t want people to hear about this history from reading his site.
Why?
Because it will enrage the Wall Street Con Men and their Internet Goon Squads if he allows honest posting at his site on these issues. The 12-year cover-up is the biggest act of financial fraud in the history of the United States. Many Buy-and-Holders will be held financially liable for millions and millions in damages. Others will go to prison. Lots of people want this covered up. Todd wants to have a successful site. So he keeps it zipped.
I do not keep it zipped. That’s why I am banned at 15 different sites.
WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT THIS MASSIVE ACT OF FINANCIAL FRAUD. THAT’S HOW WE BRING IT TO AN END. WHEN PRISON SENTENCES ARE ANNOUNCED, IT’S ALL OVER AND WE ALL WIN OUR FREEDOM TO POST HONESTLY RE THE LAST 33 YEARS OF PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH IN THIS FIELD.
Do you see?
We are working at cross purposes, Anonymous.
You want the cover-up to continue and I want to bring it to a full and complete stop.
I am not Todd Tresidder. I am Rob Bennett. My site is not successful today while his is. But I expect my site to be 50 times more successful down the road a piece. I expect to receive a $500 million settlement from the Wall Street Con Men to compensate me for the damages I have suffered during the 12-year cover-up. I expect to become famous all over the internet for being the person who brought this huge act of financial fraud to light and for bringing the economic crisis to an end by doing so.
I like Todd. I think he’s a smart guy and a good guy.
But I am not interested in playing it the way that Todd has played it.
I want to open the entire internet to honest posting on the dangers of Buy-and-Hold strategies. That’s the high-leverage move here. I think we all will learn more when we ALL are posting our sincere beliefs.
I want to know what my good friend Jack Bogle really believes about stock investing. I want to know what Bill Bernstein really believes. I want to know what Robert Shiller really believes. I want to know what Larry Swedroe really believes. I want to know what Scott Burns really believes. I want to know what Todd Tresidder really believes. And on and on and on.
There’s only one way to find out. That’s to apply the same ethical standards to discussions of stock investing as are applied to discussions in every other field of human endeavor.
I want it all, Anonymous. And I think I am going to get it.
I hope that all makes good sense to you, my old friend.
Rob
The difference is that Todd states his opinions and they are just that. The rest of us have opinions as well. With you, there is a strong agenda and you want to be the center of attention, have everyone agree with you and then to be considered some kind of financial expert to the level of someone like Bill, Jack, etc. the fact remains that you have been proven wrong time and again and this has resulted in your display of ongoing bad behavior. This behavior has been mentioned time and again, yet you persist. As such, there has been no choice but to deal with you in order to restore some level of community versus have each site filled with “hocomania”.
People have tried to reason with you, but that has never worked. You are looking for the whole world to change, when perhaps you should consider what you are doing wrong.
The difference is that Todd states his opinions and they are just that. The rest of us have opinions as well.
This is an excellent post, Pink. It gets right to the heart of what the troubles are. Thanks for posting these words.
Todd agrees with me on safe withdrawal rates. We have had several long conversations about the topic at the Financial Bloggers Conferences. Todd has a hugely successful site. He is well liked by everyone. He has been asked to speak at many of the FinCon sessions. He is a successful guy and a smart guy and a nice guy.
I am OBVIOUSLY doing something very different from what Todd is doing while agreeing with him on safe withdrawal rates.
When Todd ran his long article on safe withdrawal rates at his site, he credited my earlier work on the topic. I went to the article and posted come comments describing the history of the controversy, how I had been banned at numerous sites and how you Goons had threatened to kill my wife and children and how some of the biggest names in the field were committing financial fraud by aiding the cover-up of the errors in the Old School SWR studies and so on. Todd called me up on the phone and asked that I tone it down. I told him why I didn’t think that was the right way to handle things. He strongly hinted that he would ban me from his site if I did not shorten my comments. I shortened the comments but I also told him that I thought that was the wrong way to handle things. I haven’t posted to Todd’s site since then.
I am doing something different from Todd and lots of others. And you hit it on the head as to what that something is with what you say in the words quoted above. We can use your words to make progress re this matter if you will take what I say below seriously.
Todd treats the safe withdrawal matter as if it were a matter of opinion. I do not. I treat the matter as if there are right and wrong answers. That’s why I make references to financial fraud and prison sentences. This is what makes me different. This is the sticking point.
Now —
If Greaney and all the others are willing to say that their safe withdrawal rate claims are merely expressions of their personal opinion, I am happy to take back every word in which I have argued that Greaney “got the numbers wrong.” Is that fair enough?
If Greaney was stating his personal opinion, it is not possible for him to get the numbers wrong. Yes, you are right that “the rest of us have opinions as well.” You have as much right to your opinion as Todd Tresidder has to his, Pink. I am with you 100 percent re that one.
But —
I also say that I have as much right to my opinion as Greaney has to his.
Greaney did not act as if his SWR claim was merely his opinion when I put up my famous post asking if we should be considering valuations when we calculated the number. That’s the problem.
If all SWR claims are the product of opinion, we have no problem.
If Greaney’s SWR claim is the product of peer-reviewed research (the methodology used in the Greaney study was taken from the Trinity study, which is peer-reviewed research), then I need to make the point that my Retirement Risk Evaluator is based on the peer-reviewed research of Robert Shiller, who won a Nobel prize for the work he did in this field.
If you stop saying that the Old School studies and calculators are rooted in peer-reviewed research and instead say that they are merely the product of opinion, there is no dispute. I can then state my own opinion and each community member can decide for himself or herself what he or she wants to go with. That is a 100 percent fine way to proceed, in my assessment.
But if you are going to say that there is peer-reviewed research supporting the Old School SWR claims, then I have no choice but to note that there is 33 years of peer-reviewed research supporting the New School claims and that that research DISCREDITED the research that has been cited in support of the Old School claims. And that the 12-year cover-up is the most massive act of financial fraud yet seen in U.S. history.
You have the solution to our problems being presented to you on a plate.
Are you willing to give up the claim that Greaney’s SWR numbers are the product of research and are properly understood as merely the product of one person’s opinion?
If you are, then let’s get about the business of making the world a better place.
If you are not, then I obviously have no choice but to continue to let anyone in the world who will listen know about this massive and ongoing (for 12 years now!) act of financial fraud.
I hope that helps a bit, Pink.
Rob
With you, there is a strong agenda
There is zero dispute as to whether I have an agenda, Pink.
My agenda is to promote Valuation-Informed Indexing over Buy-and-Hold until Valuation-Informed Indexing becomes the dominant model and we bring this economic crisis (caused by the promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies) to an end.
Do you object to this agenda?
If yes, can you please explain why?
I view this as the most wonderful agenda possible. I am taking Bogle’s ideas to places he never dreamed possible. Is there something bad about doing that?
Rob
you want to be the center of attention, have everyone agree with you and then to be considered some kind of financial expert to the level of someone like Bill, Jack, etc.
Yes and no.
On the morning of May 13, 2002, it was my intent to warn my fellow community members of the dangers of the Greaney SWR study. That was as far as it went. Doing that would have enhanced my reputation in the Retire Early community. But I was not expecting it to be any huge big deal. My primary intention was to rid our community of an insanely abusive poster, one who has doing very serious harm to the growth of the board community I had built (with the help of hundreds of other fine and good people).
Today, it is a different story.
I have been the primary developer and promoter of the Valuation-Informed Indexing concept for 12 years now. So, yes, I think it would be fair to say that, as Valuation-Informed Indexing overtakes Buy-and-Hold as the dominant model for understanding how stock investing works, I am going to win international fame as the person most responsible for that happening. Do you think I should apologize for that, Pink? I sure don’t. I am very proud of the enormously valuable work that I have done in this field.
Have you ever once heard me hesitate to give full credit to my good friend Jack Bogle and to all of my other numerous Buy-and-Hold friends for their hugely important contributions?
You have never heard that. I LOVE those people. There would be no Valuation-Informed Indexing were it not for the hugely important contributions of Jack and all my other Buy-and-Hold friends. I will be saying that until the day I die.
Things are weird today because Jack and many of my other Buy-and-Hold friends are engaged in acts of financial fraud aimed at deceiving millions of middle-class investors re their involvement in the 12-year cover-up of the errors in the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies. The most important thing we all need to be doing today is bringing this massive act of financial fraud to a full and immediate stop. It is by bringing this massive act of financial fraud to a full and immediate stop that we free Jack and all the others to do good and honest work again and thereby to develop new insights that help us all (and that enhance their reputations).
Do you know anyone working that side of things as hard as I work it on a daily basis, Pink?
There is no one.
There is no one even in a distant second place.
I mean, give me a freakin’ break.
I have worked this one hard, Pink. I show my love for Old Saint Jack on a daily basis.
When have you last done something to help the guy out?
I walk the “I Love Jack Bogle” walk while you and the other Goons merely talk the “I Love Jack Bogle” talk.
Fair enough?
Rob
then to be considered some kind of financial expert to the level of someone like Bill, Jack, etc.
I am 12 years ahead of anyone who has not yet acknowledged the errors in the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies, Pink.
How could I not be?
When they come clean, I have little doubt that many of my Buy-and-Hold friends will catch up to me and then probably overpass me.
But it ain’t gonna happen until they work up the courage to come clean re the safe withdrawal rate matter.
You have to get the basics right before you can get the advanced stuff right. Personal integrity is the most basic of basics.
Do you see?
Rob
A side note.
I try to say things in as soft a manner as possible.
There is no truly soft way to point out that the biggest names in this field have been for 12 years now behaving in a manner that reveals a lack of personal integrity. So not all the words that I put forward are 100 percent soft. I get that.
But I try, you know?
I say things as soft as I can given that we are living in a time-period of the most massive act of financial fraud in U.S. history. I am working hard to bring the cover-up to an end so that we can all be friends again and have fun while bringing on the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history.
I do not have the power to force any others to play it the way in which I have (correctly) pointed out it must be played.
Perhaps you have noticed, Pink.
I love you guys.
The problem is — You don’t yet love yourself enough to do what you know deep in your heart you are someday going to have to do.
I am here to help.
I am NOT here to commit acts that will get me thrown in prison too.
Re that smelly garbage, please try to find something else.
I hope that all that makes good sense to you, my long-time Goon friend.
Rob
there has been no choice but to deal with you in order to restore some level of community versus have each site filled with “hocomania”.
If you permit honest posting, every board is going to be filled with discussions of Valuation-Informed Indexing. That much is for sure.
That’s a good thing, Pink. A very, very, very, very good thing.
That should have happened back in 1981.
We don’t have a time machine. 1981 is lost to us at this point.
But the last two months of 2014 are not yet lost to us.
That’s very, very, very, very good news.
We should be certain to take advantage of the opportunity to bring the economic crisis to an end that that opportunity presents to us.
I am sure.
Rob
I love my country.
Do you see how everything else follows from that simple reality?
Rob
People have tried to reason with you, but that has never worked.
Threatening to kill my wife and children is not trying to reason with me, Pink.
Intimidation tactics are not the answer to this one.
Again, I am sure.
Rob
You are looking for the whole world to change
Yes!
Precisely so.
The shift from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing is the biggest advance in the history of personal finance.
The good stuff here is 50 times more good than the bad stuff here is bad.
We are the luckiest generation of investors ever to have walked Planet Earth.
Now let’s all get about the business of bringing this nasty economic crisis to an end!
Please?
Rob
perhaps you should consider what you are doing wrong.
I am not doing anything wrong. I am doing something wonderfully right.
The Buy-and-Holders are trying to protect turf.
They have committed crimes to do so. Felonies. That translates into prison time following the next price crash.
Huh?
Rob
Rob,
I think you ate wrong on almost every point you have mentioned. It is fine for people to disagree and this happens almost every day on most of the popular financial boards out there. We all have opinions and they are just that. In your case, you do not think that is good enough. You want people to say you are right and that they are wrong. When people try to move along, you just turn things up. Look at this thread. I made one post and you follow it up with 10. You are not trying to understand. Instead, you are trying to convince me as to how you think you are right and how I should then agree with your positions.
When all else fails, you throw in a few extra cards, like death threats, prison, $500 million settlements. Those things have nothing to do with the conversation, yet you think those are emotional levers that will strike fear into someone as a way to try and get them to change their mind.
I think you ate wrong on almost every point you have mentioned.
Surprise! Surprise!
Rob
It is fine for people to disagree and this happens almost every day on most of the popular financial boards out there.
There is some disagreement on most boards. But the range of acceptable opinion is far too narrow.
One time I put up a post at a blog in which I described Buy-and-Hold as “a Get Rich Quick scheme.” One fellow posted that he had never heard anyone say that before. That’s the problem.
Shiller didn’t publish his “revolutionary” (his word) research last week or last month or even last year. He published it in 1981. There should be a common understanding today that there is now 33 years of peer-reviewed research showing that there is precisely zero chance that Buy-and-Hold could ever work for a single long-term investor. There isn’t. That’s why there is shock when I say it. People need to hear that message over and over and over again if they are to successfully ignore the constant promotion of the pure Get Rich Quick approach (Buy-and-Hold) by the Wall Street Con Men. The number of times a message is repeated affects how persuasive it is. We need to hear the anti-Buy-and-Hold message repeated as often as the pro-Buy-ad-Hold message is repeated. And we need to hear it being repeated by many different voices.
Todd Tresidder agrees with me on safe withdrawal rates. How often has he gone to the Bogleheads Forum to explain why he thinks the Old School SWR studies are dangerous for investors? He hasn’t done it, Pink. If he did it every day, and if hundreds of others did it everyday, no one would think twice when I warned people of the dangers of those studies. But Todd doesn’t want you Goons attacking his site. So he keeps it zipped; he makes his comments only at his own site. That’s why we are in an economic crisis today.
I don’t play that game, Pink. I love my country. I want to bring the economic crisis to an end. I want millions of middle-class investors to have access to accurate and honest reports of what the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research says.
Greaney said in his study that the ideal stock allocation is 74 percent stocks. The last 33 years of peer-reviewed research shows that 20 percent stocks is a far better choice for the long-term investor when stocks are priced as they have been for the past 18 years. Not everyone at the Bogleheads Forum says exactly what Greaney says. Some say that 90 percent stocks is better. Some say that 60 percent stocks is better. Some even say that 50 percent stocks is better. How many say that 20 percent stocks is better? Very, very few. And those who do tend to say it once and then shut up while those arguing for 60 percent stocks or 70 percent stocks or 80 percent stocks say it over and over and over again.
Those posting research-based views have every bit as much right to express their views as those going with the pure Buy-and-Hold/Get Rich Quick garbage. When threats of physical violence are used to intimidate those who believe in research-based strategies from posting their sincere views, the board becomes a corrupt enterprise. Many posters see that the range of opinion expressed at the board stretches from 50 percent stocks to 80 percent stocks. That makes them inclined to think that 65 percent stocks might be roughly right. If they knew that the only reason why there aren’t hundreds of posters making the case for the research-based allocation (20 percent or perhaps 30 percent stocks), those community members would have a very different belief as to how to go about investing their money.
You are personally responsible for the losses those people will be experiencing in coming days, Pink. This isn’t a case where you permitted the research-based views to be heard on the same terms as the pure Get Rich Quick views. You permitted ONLY Get Rich Quick views. And you didn’t warn people that that was your policy,. You stated in the published rules of the site that honest posting was PERMITTED. You committed financial fraud. So you are responsible for all losses suffered. And you are guilty of a felony under the laws of the United States.
I want no part of it. Going to prison is not high on my bucket list.
Not this boy.
I can’t go for that.
No can do.
Rob
We all have opinions and they are just that.
Then why the death threats?
And why the unjustified board bannings?
And why the tens of thousands of acts of defamation?
And why threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs?
You will be able to tell your story to your jury, Pink. But your jury will also see the Post Archives.
That’s how our system works.
Rob
When people try to move along, you just turn things up. Look at this thread. I made one post and you follow it up with 10. You are not trying to understand.
I am not trying to develop an appreciation of the benefits of practicing financial fraud on investing discussion boards and blogs, Pink. That much would be more than fair to say.
I OPPOSE that sort of thing in the strongest possible terms. I have hopes of becoming known all over the internet as the most severe critic of Buy-and-Hold investing strategies alive on Planet Earth today.
I am the lead advocate of Valuation-Informed Indexing. I am the lead advocate of the idea of permitting honest posting on the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research at every investing board and blog on the internet.
Do you see?
Rob
Instead, you are trying to convince me as to how you think you are right and how I should then agree with your positions.
Obviously.
What would you expect?
If I tried to persuade you that Buy-and-Hold can work, I would be posting dishonestly. Then I would be engaged in financial fraud as well.
Huh?
Of course I am trying to persuade you. That’s my job.
I am not just trying to persuade you. I am trying to persuade every person who comes across my words. But you are one of those people and I am certainly trying to persuade you. I certainly have never said different.
I am your friend, Pink. Why would I not want to persuade you to follow the first true research-based investing strategy? What possible motive could I have for ever playing it differently?
Rob
I made one post and you follow it up with 10.
What is the ratio of pro-Buy-and-Hold posts to anti-Buy-and-Hold posts at the Bogleheads Forum?
It is at least 10 to 1.
I posted more frequently than most other community members when I posted there because there were more questions directed to me than to anyone else. But the overall ratio of posts always favored Buy-and-Hold by at least 10 to 1.
Give me a friggin’ break.
Rob
When all else fails, you throw in a few extra cards, like death threats, prison, $500 million settlements. Those things have nothing to do with the conversation, yet you think those are emotional levers that will strike fear into someone as a way to try and get them to change their mind.
Greaney put forward his first death threat on the evening of August 27, 2002.
Every poster at the Motley Fool board should have called for his removal on that date.
If Greaney had been removed then, you wouldn’t be on a path leading to a prison cell today, Pink.
It is not charity to avoid discussion of the prison sentences. It is cowardice.
The sooner we all start talking about the prison sentences , the better. From that day forward, there will not be new people taking actions that will get them sent to prison. And we will then be able to turn our economy around, which I believe will reduce the public’s anger at those who have posted in “defense” of Mel Linduaer and John Greaney. That means shorter prison sentences for you and the other Goons than would otherwise apply, Pink. You can’t get much more win/win/win than that.
Rob
“One time I put up a post at a blog in which I described Buy-and-Hold as “a Get Rich Quick scheme.” One fellow posted that he had never heard anyone say that before. That’s the problem.”
Exactly.
Buy. And. Hold.
Get. Rich. Quick.
Good reporters know what periods are for. They are instructions to the reader to come to a full stop. For you, Rob, I suggest that you not only come to a full stop for them, but that you also then wait a few moments to allow the import of each individual word to sink in. You seem to need that.
Good reporters also know that trying to shoehorn in catch-phrases, analogies, and hyperbole into otherwise intellectually empty lamely verbose ramblings is no formula for success; either popularly or financially. And certainly it is no way for a grown man to waste increasingly disappearing time that he could otherwise devote to honest pursuits, such as supporting his family, in the breadwinner role for a change.
You want people to say you are right and that they are wrong.
I want people to say that I am right if they are convinced.
I do NOT want people to say that I am right if they are NOT convinced.
I want people to CHALLENGE me if they do not agree with me.
I’ll give you an example. I wrote a column before the 2012 election saying that I thought we would see the next crash within a year following the election regardless of how it turned out. You Goons pointed out that I was proven wrong re that one. I think that was good stuff. I of course said so here. You made me even more reluctant to make short-term predictions than I was before that happened. You helped me. I learned from you.
That is not the only time that happened. There have been MANY cases in which I learned from you Goons. There are two or three RobCasts in which I come out and thank one of your Goons for putting forward the insight re which that particular RobCast was focused.
You have not been successful in persuading me to follow a Buy-and-Hold strategy. You can’t win them all! But you have now and again influenced my thinking. That’s something. And I am grateful for it.
I don’t believe that you believe in Valuation-Informed Indexing. So I do not want you to say you believe in it. It would be irresponsible and wrong for you to do so.
But I do expect civility. I do expect you to follow the published rules of the sites at which you post. And I expect the owners of those sites to give you the boot when you refuse to do so.
I don’t just expect that. I demand it. I INSIST on it.
And I intend to hold the site owners who have failed to enforce their published rules responsible for the damages that I have suffered as a result. I also intend to help all others who have suffered damages during the 12-year Campaign of Terror against our board and blog communities.
Fair enough?
Rob
Good reporters also know that trying to shoehorn in catch-phrases, analogies, and hyperbole into otherwise intellectually empty lamely verbose ramblings is no formula for success
Your behavior shows that you share my view that Buy-and-Hold is a Get Rich Quick scheme, Yogi.
You follow the strategy. So one one level of consciousness you believe in it. I’l give you that.
But you lack confidence. If you possessed confidence in your strategy, you would be able to laugh off everything I say and remain friends with me. You can’t do that because my words stir up the inner doubts that you are trying to silence.
YOU believe on one level of consciousness that Buy-and-Hold is a Get Rich Quick scheme. And you are one of its advocates.
Why should those of us who are up to date on the peer-reviewed research come to any different conclusions?
Rob
Rob,
Thanks for continuing to prove my points.
Fair enough, Pink.
Rob