Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
When you wrote to Bogle, did you tell him he was a con-man?
I played it with Bogle the same way that I played it with Greaney, Anonymous.
When I first pointed out that Greaney’s retirement study does not contain an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins, I didn’t call him a “Goon.” It was when he responded by threatening to kill my wife and children that I began referring to him as a “Goon.”
So it was with Bogle. My assumption was that he would correct his error when it was pointed out to him. He didn’t. That’s what made him a con man. So that’s when I started referring to him as a con man.
Are you able to suggest any better way of proceeding in circumstances like this?
Have you considered that you wouldn’t be worried about a prison sentence today had Bogle come clean back in 1981? Each day that the cover-up continues, more people get hurt. Including Goons like you.
There’s no charity in covering up an act of financial fraud. The charitable thing to do is to INSIST that the fraud be brought to a full and complete stop. It’s also charitable to take the circumstances into account, to try to understand that someone can get caught up in something and make a mistake without meaning to. But there’s no charity in permitting the mistake to go uncorrected. That’s a negative for every single person concerned.