Yesterday’s blog entry contained a link to an article by Wade Pfau in which he referenced me as “one internet blogger” without referring to me by name or linking to my site. Set forth below is the comment that I advanced in response to the Goon post linking to Wade’s article:
I’m grateful to you for letting me know about the article, Pink.
I take a very, very, very different view of Wade’s words than what you are advancing here.
Of course Wade is scared. He shows that in the words he puts forward. Nothing could be more clear. You Goons can pretend to believe that he does not sound scared. But only until the next price crash. After the next price crash, nobody is going to be pretending. Wade is going to be on trial for financial fraud and you Goons are going to be on trial for financial fraud. I will not be on trial. I haven’t committed financial fraud. I will be testifying at your trial and at Wade’s trial. I will be pointing the juries to articles set forth at this web site, including this one and including the scores of articles in which Wade sang the praises of Valuation-Informed Indexing and expressed his discomfort at the insane abusiveness of you Goons. I have a funny hunch that I know how those jury verdicts are going to go.
Why the the heck do you think Wade put forward those words? He did it for the same reason why you Goons visit this site on a daily basis. He is scared to death, just as you Goons are.
How the heck would Wade know how “the concept” should be applied? He didn’t even know about Valuation-Informed Indexing until he learned of my work. Valuation-Informed Indexing is the investing strategy rooted in the peer-reviewed research of Nobel-Prize-Winning Economist Robert Shiller. Wade learned nothing about it when earning his Ph.D. at Princeton. He learned about it by asking me hundreds of questions about it and then researching what I told him. He reported to me on numerous occasions that all his research supported everything I said. He flipped only when you Goons threatened to send defamatory e-mails to his employer in an effort to get him fired. Gee, I wonder what the jury is going to make of that.
Wade is going to prison, Pink. So are you. So are a good number of others. There’s nothing that I or anyone else can do about that at this point in the proceedings. The best that I can do is to try to get Wade’s prison sentence reduced a bit. To do that, I need for him to come clean today. Presuming that he doesn’t do that, his jury will determine the length of his prison sentence. It is not for me to say. I will testify honestly and completely and in a balanced way. That’s my duty. When I have done that, can walk away with a clear conscience.
You are right that Wade does not mention me as co-author. What do you think the jury is going to think about that? And what do you think his jury is going to think of the fact that he wrote the article in such a manner that you Goons feel comfortable citing it and linking to it? If the article were an honest piece of work, that obviously would not be possible.
There was one time when I made a prediction that the crash would come by the end of 2015. I now say that I expect to see it by the end of 2016. What of it? I have also said that short-term predictions do not work. I have the same track record as Robert Shiler, who predicted in 1996 that we would see the first crash by 2006. I feel in good company to be in the company of a Nobel Prize Winner.
Did Wade explain all this to his readers? Or did he try to mislead them? If he tried to mislead them, why did he do that? What will his jury conclude?
Why does Wade refer to me as “one internet blogger” rather than referring to me by name and by providing a link to this web site? His obvious concern is that, if he did so, readers trying to determine the truth of the matter could learn about his long history of financial fraud re these matters (that, in fairness, began on the day that you Goons threatened to get him fired from his job if he continued to do honest work and when Jack Bogle signaled that he would be supporting you Goons, not Wade, if Wade continued to do honest work).
Wade is going to prison. You are going to prison. Bogle is going to prison. I am not.
That’s the bottom line here.
Yes, he is afraid. Yes, you are afraid. Yes. Bogle is afraid.
I am not afraid re going to prison. I am afraid re the continued destruction being done to my country with each day that this massive act of financial fraud remains unexposed. I will continue doing all that is in my power to expose it. I have a funny feeling that that job will become a whole big bunch easier in the days following the next price crash.
But we will see, you know? Time will reveal all things.
I don’t know for absolutely certain that there will be a crash in 2015 or in 2016 or ever. What I know for absolutely certain is that there has never been a bull/bear cycle that resolved itself without the P/E10 level falling to 8 or lower and, starting from today’s levels, that’s a fall of more than 65 percent. If it doesn’t happen, it will be the first time in history that things have gone this new way. It’s the longest of all possible long-shots.
I don’t want my name attached to promotion of an investing “strategy” that causes those kinds of consequences over and over and over again. The promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies has caused four economic crises (the only four that we have suffered in the past 145 years). There was no peer-reviewed research showing that Buy-and-Hold caused the earlier crises at the time they took place. That’s how this one is different. This is the first one that took place at a time when we all had 34 years of peer-reviewed research available to us showing how things really works.
Wade won’t be going to prison because he doesn’t understand all this stuff. He is in good company there. I certainly didn’t understand all this stuff on the morning of May 13, 2002. John Walter Russell didn’t understand all this stuff when he started working with me. Shiller doesn’t understand all this stuff.
Wade will be going to prison because he participated in the cover-up, because he incurred a responsibility to help us all learn what we need to know and chose to join in the corruption rather than to expose the con because he felt that those involved in the con could offer him more enticing personal rewards.
Not this boy.
Find someone else.
I can’t go for that.
No can do.
It’s not my particular cup of tea.
I naturally wish you all the best things that this life has to offer a person.
Rob
Anonymous says
Who is a goon and what makes them a goon?
Rob says
Goons are internet posters who engage in insanely abusive behavior to block their fellow community members from learning what they need to know about the last 34 years of peer-reviewed research in this field to invest effectively. The four types of Goon behavior that we have witnessed during the first 13 years of our Debate About Permitting a Debate on the implications of Shiller’s “revolutionary” (his word) finding that valuations affect long-term returns are: (1) death threats and threats of other forms of physical violence; (2) demands for unjustified board bannings; (3) the advancing of tens of thousands of acts of defamation; and (4) threats to get academic researchers who do honest work based on the peer-reviewed research of the past 34 years fired from their jobs.
I hope that helps a bit, Anonymous.
Rob
x says
When was your most recent actual ban?
Rob says
I don’t recall.
Rob
x says
So it’s been years. If you rejoined any of those boards, do you believe you would be immediately (and unjustifiably) banned?
Rob says
If the owners of a board invited me back, I don’t think that I would ever be banned at that board again. The invitation for me to return would show that the issues that caused the ban had been resolved. I have never violated any posting rule. So there is no reason to believe that I would ever be banned anywhere once the issue of whether honest posting on the last 34 years of peer-reviewed research should be permitted has been resolved. Everyone agrees that I am a great and popular poster who always follows the published posting rules. The only issue has been whether honest posting on the last 34 years of peer-reviewed research should be permitted or not. I am controversial because I insist that my right (and the right of all other posters) to post honestly on the last 34 years of peer-reviewed research be acknowledged and respected.
If I went back to a board where I have been banned without being invited back by the owners, my presumption is that I would be quickly re-banned. The new ban would of course be just as unjustifiable as the first ban.
I hope that helps a bit, X.
Rob
x says
No one is going to send you an engraved invitation. That just doesn’t happen. Which of course you know. Apparently the real reason for your withdrawing from the board community, where you once were so vibrantly active, will remain a mystery.
Rob says
I am willing to help out at any blog or board that is looking for the help that I am able to provide, X. I love what Buy-and-Hold used to stand for. I believe that the game changed when Shiller published his “revolutionary” (his word) research. I now promote Valuation-Informed Indexing because VII is now what Buy-and-Hold used to be in earlier days.
There is huge interest in the exploration of the implications of the new research. I know that because I have seen it with my own eyes at every board and blog to which I have posted. Every site owner should want to tap into that huge interest. Firstly, because it is the ethical thing to do — it’s financial fraud to mislead investors into thinking that the pre-1981 research is the last word on what we know about how stock investing works. Secondly, because there is a lot of money to be made in developing and promoting the first true research-based strategy. And, thirdly, because its fun to see debate re new ideas play out.
Even Buy-and-Holders should be encouraging The Great Debate. If Buy-and-Hold is the real thing, it will prevail in the debate. That makes the case for Buy-and-Hold look stronger while blocking the debate makes the case for Buy-and-Hold look very weak indeed. Also, having to respond to challenges from Valuation-Informed Indexers helps Buy-and-Holders sharpen their arguments and their thinking. And overcoming those challenges would enhance the confidence that the Buy-and-Holders feel for their strategy. That will turn out to be a big plus if ever there are times when things do not appear to be going well for Buy-and-Hold. Investors need confidence to “Stay the Course” in such times. Confidence is developed by being willing to partake in the give-and-take that is a natural part of the discussions held in all field of human endeavor with the exception of investing analysis.
I don’t with your “that doesn’t happen” comment. Unjustified board bannings should not happen. In cases in which they do, it makes all the sense in the world for a site offer to send a message letting the person who was improperly banned that a mistake was made and that the banning has been retracted. It doesn’t make much sense for a poster who has been improperly banned to return to a board where he was banned without him having heard any indication that attitudes have changed. What constructive purpose would be served by doing such a thing?
The site owners would need to make an explanation to the entire community in any event, no? If I were to return to the Bogleheads Forum or to Morningstar or to the Early Retirement Forum and I were not re-banned, do you believe that other posters would not ask me what was going on? It sure seems likely to me that many would do that. What would you have me say? We would need a statement from the site owner.
I don’t have a problem with the idea of having the statement from the site owner not address every detail of what has gone on. I of course understand that this is a delicate matter. But it does seem to me that there needs to be some sort of recognition that a change has occurred. Some issues can be finessed. But the core issue — whether all boards and blogs are going to begin permitting exploration of the implications of the post-1981 research — must be addressed. If it is not, there is just going to be more confusion and more ill will generated in the future. No one wants that. It makes sense to be diplomatic. But an effective diplomacy puts the ugly stuff truly behind us. To achieve that goal, we need to be at least a tiny bit clear on the core question.
These things can be worked out. I feel a great respect and affection for my many Buy-and-Hold friends. I have zero hard feelings towards anyone. If that attitude is shared on your side of the table, people can sit down together and work things out in a way acceptable to all. And we have great opportunities here. The Buy-and-Hold Pioneers are heroes — no one believes that more strongly than I do. They are greater heroes in my eyes than they are today in their own eyes because I see clearly how good things look on the other side of The Big Black Mountain. None of what I have done is anti-Buy-and-Hold. VII is the FULFILLMENT of the Buy-and-Hold promise. It is what Buy-and-Hold was intended to be going back to its first days.
So what we need is an acceptance of the reality that we need to do things that perhaps in ordinary circumstances “just don’t happen.” On the day when you want to work together for the good of every human being on the planet, I am here for you. That will never change. There’s no dirty name that you can call me that will cause me to question my conviction that that is the way to play this thing.
I hope that those words help a tiny bit, X.
My best and warmest wishes to you and yours.
Rob
x says
“it makes all the sense in the world for a site offer to send a message letting the person who was improperly banned that a mistake was made and that the banning has been retracted”
Nonsense. As the saying goes, it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission. Or in your case, it’s a thousand times easier to rejoin a board than it is to find someone to apologize and ask you back. After all these years it’s presumptuous to assume that anyone at the site even remember you.
Rob says
Financial fraud is a crime.
If a site owner bans someone solely because that individual posted honestly on the last 34 years of peer-reviewed research, that site owner is guilty of financial fraud. That’s a felony. That’s prison time.
I am a reporter. I have reported what has happened as it has happened. I will continue to report what has happened as the losses experienced by millions of middle-class investors grow larger and larger.
I want to help out anyone who wants to be helped out. I want to keep the human misery to a minimum. Both for the millions of middle-class investors and for the site owners who have committed acts of financial fraud.
There’s only so much that I can do. I can’t commit financial fraud myself. Going to prison is not high on my bucket list.
I won’t be serving on any of the juries. What matters in the end is what those juries think of what has been done following the next price crash.
If I were a site owner who had committed financial fraud, I would be doing everything in my power to make myself look as good as possible on a going forward basis.
But that’s just me, you know. The site owners are different people. I don’t control them and I don’t seek to control them. They should do what they think best.
If anyone asks me for help, I am going to provide help. That’s my pledge to you, X.
What others do is out of my hands.
I naturally wish you all the best that this life has to offer a person.
Rob