Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:
Scan back the last two years on your boards. Nothing about savings. Scan this site. Ditto. You continue to classify buy and hold as the biggest cause of failed retirements (a lie).
Also, to set the record straight, it was not you that made the motley fool board successful. Saw the old history on that claim and where you were set straight. The prison crap is just your fantasy.
The research is conclusive that the main reason for failed retirements is due to insufficient savings. To say otherwise is wrong and would be fraud.
Your motive for saying that is rooted in emotion, Anonymous. You don’t want to address the issue that has been on the table for 15 years now.
I don’t feel even a tiny bit comfortable telling my friends lies about the numbers they use to plan their retirements.
The retirement study posted at John Greaney’s web site does not contain an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. I said that on the morning of May 13, 2002, and I say it again today and I’ll still be saying it 15 billion years from today.
Anybody who doesn’t feel comfortable calculating the safe withdrawal rate is free not to calculate it or not to discuss the calculations done by others. But no one in any community has the right to engage in intimidation tactics aimed at stopping those who do want to perform accurate safe-withdrawal-rate calculations and to discuss those calculations with others from doing so.
The safe withdrawal rate is a number that VARIES depending on the valuation level that applies at a given point of time. Every investor alive needs to know that. We should all be working together to get the word out. Those who for some reason or another do not want to participate in that effort need to at the very minimum permit others to participate in it in peace.
These are my sincere thoughts re the matter. I am all for having community members do what they can to help others save more effectively. I wrote an entire book on the subject and am 100 percent happy to help out in that area where I can. But that reality doesn’t make me any more willing to report or endorse false safe-withdrawal-rate numbers. When I report safe withdrawal rates, I report them with the “revolutionary” (Shiller’s word) research findings of the last 36 years in mind. And I don’t have a tiny bit of give re that question. Honesty is 100 percent imperative re the reporting of numbers that people are using to plan their retirements.
I hope that helps a small bit, my good friend.
Rob
“Your motive for saying that is rooted in emotion, Anonymous.”
No, it is rooted in fact. Your response is what is emotional. Why is that, Rob?
I’m not the one who got the numbers wrong in a retirement study posted at my web site, Anonymous. That was the other fellow.
The rational thing is to correct a retirement study that has been shown to be in error. The emotional thing is to cover up the error for 15 years.
Or so says Rob Bennett in any event, you know?
Rob
The “other fellow” is living a happy retirement. You have been obsessing over one online spat for 15 years, immersing yourself in an entirely delusional world of goons and conspiracies. With no sign of that ever changing.
Tragic.
If Greaney is enjoying his retirement, that’s a good thing.
Greaney is not my only fellow community member. There are thousands of others, and I would like to see them enjoy their retirements as well. So I have elected to report the safe-withdrawal-rate numbers honestly and accurately.
Why has my desire to do that become a “spat”?
It’s become a “spat” because Greaney is embarrassed that he got the numbers wrong. Did I cause his embarrassment or is it all the people who failed to speak up about the failure of the Wall Street Con Men to update Buy-and-Hold to reflect what we have learned from the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research in this field who caused this “spat”?
I think it is the failure of so many to talk about the research that has caused the problem. So I try to be careful to avoid making that mistake.
I have no desire for any “spats,” Anonymous. But I have a strong desire to post honestly at every discussion board and blog on the internet and not to be attacked for doing so. There’s a tragedy here. But I don’t think it is my stubborn insistence on recognition of my right to post honestly that is the tragedy. I wish that everyone insisted on everyone’s right to post honestly. That would solve all the problems. That’s the American way.
So we will just have to wait to see how things play out. I will never do anything to cause any “spats.” But I will continue to post honestly re safe withdrawal rates and scores of other critically important investment-related topics. And we will find out together how things play out as time passes.
I wish you all good things.
Rob
“I wish that everyone insisted on everyone’s right to post honestly. That would solve all the problems. That’s the American way.”
No, that’s what IT people call a solution in search of a problem. Everyone can already post honestly. Everyone, that is, with the tiny exception of that handful of cranks who absolutely will not behave in a civil manner. Cranks have always been shunned, and always will be shunned, and rightly so.
Just for clarity, here is the first part of the Wikipedia entry for “cranks”:
“Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.”
I especially like that last sentence. Bullseye. They don’t come any more futile and impervious than you.
Wow Rob, you really need to read this whole entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
It’s your freakin’ biography. Juicy excerpt:
According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.
Some cranks lack academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering the truth, but actively harmful because they believe it poisons the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some achievement (real or alleged) in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.
Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not, in fact, well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.
In addition, many cranks:
1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
3. compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor), implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
4. claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
No, that’s what IT people call a solution in search of a problem. Everyone can already post honestly. Everyone, that is, with the tiny exception of that handful of cranks who absolutely will not behave in a civil manner. Cranks have always been shunned, and always will be shunned, and rightly so.
Just for clarity, here is the first part of the Wikipedia entry for “cranks”:
“Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.”
I especially like that last sentence. Bullseye. They don’t come any more futile and impervious than you.
Please mark me down as believing that the crank who was recently awarded the Nobel prize in Economics might be on to something.
Rob
Wow Rob, you really need to read this whole entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
It’s your freakin’ biography. Juicy excerpt:
According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.
Some cranks lack academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering the truth, but actively harmful because they believe it poisons the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some achievement (real or alleged) in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.
Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not, in fact, well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.
In addition, many cranks:
1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
3. compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor), implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
4. claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Every new idea that made life better for millions was in its early days dismissed as a crank idea by those seeking to defend their turf from the reach of progress.
Rob
“If Greaney is enjoying his retirement, that’s a good thing.”
All we have to do is compare those that have been financially successful in retirement. The common thread is the savings level.
Okay.
Rob
“Every new idea that made life better for millions was in its early days dismissed as a crank idea by those seeking to defend their turf from the reach of progress.”
a) Wrong, and b) for the few who actually were called cranks, it did not take 15 years for their ideas to be accepted.
This is actually a fascinating topic. Much has been written about your ilk.
“Gardner says that cranks have two common characteristics. The first and most important is that they work in almost total isolation from the scientific community.
The second characteristic of the crank (which also contributes to his or her isolation) is the tendency to paranoia.
1. The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2. He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both.
3. He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign comparable to the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.”
Related to the discussion of cranks is the topic of pseudoscience.
“During the mid-20th century, Karl Popper emphasized the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from nonscience. Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. That is, if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates them. Popper used astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience and Einstein’s theory of relativity as an example of science.
Another example which shows the distinct need for a claim to be falsifiable was stated in Carl Sagan’s publication The Demon-Haunted World when he discusses an invisible dragon that he has in his garage. The point is made that there is no physical test to refute the claim of the presence of this dragon. No matter what test you think you can devise, there is then a reason why this does not apply to the invisible dragon, so one can never prove that the initial claim is wrong. Sagan concludes; “Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?”. He states that “your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true”, once again explaining that even if such a claim were true, it would be outside the realm of scientific inquiry.”
VII is a perfect example of pseudoscience. You refuse to define how to implement it, therefore it can’t be tested, therefore it can’t be falsified.
Face it Rob. You’re not the very special snowflake you believe yourself to be. You’re just another crank out there howling at the moon.
So, if we see what is successful, then we just repeat that. As an example, William Bernstein has done the research and the work. We don’t need silly timing schemes. You act like there is secret to all of this or that you have figured out the holy grail of investing. It really isn’t that hard to figure out.
And yet Bernstein said that the safe withdrawal rate at the top of the bubble was 2 percent.
I wonder why.
Rob
“And yet Bernstein said that the safe withdrawal rate at the top of the bubble was 2 percent.”
And yet Bernstein said that sufficient savings was required before retiring and that you can’t time the market. Wonder why?
He said that sufficient savings is required before retiring because it is true.
He said that you can’t time the market because Get Rich Quick strategies are popular for so long as stock prices remain at insanely dangerous levels. Long-term timing is price discipline. Precisely 100 percent of the peer-reviewed research shows that exercising price discipline (engaging in long-term timing) is the key to long-term success while precisely zero percent of the peer-reviewed research shows that Buy-and-Hold can ever produce good long-term results.
Bernstein likes to be popular like everyone else. But do millions of middle-class investors need investiing advice that makes those offering it popular or do they need investing advice that permits them to enjoy far higher returns at greatly reduced risk? I believe that we should be helping people retire as soon as possible and as safely as possible. Call me madcap.
And I believe that those offering honest, research-based investing advice will be doing perfectly fine in the popularity department as well in the days following the next price crash. I believe that we will be doing a lot better than the Wall Street Con Men pushing their smelly Buy-and-Hold garbage in those days.
But we’ll see, you know?
Rob
“He said that sufficient savings is required before retiring because it is true”
Yet you ignored that.
Um….
How many $500 million checks do you have supporting your retirement, Anonymous?
I have a funny feeling that I will manage to struggle by somehow.
The horror! The horror!
Rob
“How many $500 million checks do you have supporting your retirement, Anonymous?”
I am much closer to that number than you are or ever will be.
So you say, Anonymous.
And yet you have failed for 15 years running now to speak out about the errors in the retirement study posted at John Greaney’s web site. Who has the credibility here?
I have a funny feeling that I know who is going to end up on top here in the days following the next price crash. I hope it is okay with you if we wait a bit to find out for sure.
Rob
I don’t see anyone saying there was an error other than you. Further, we would need the stock to loose around 97% of its current level for my numbers to shrink to your level.
The members of the committee that awarded Shiller his Nobel prize are saying that there was an error. No, they don’t say it directly and I do. That’s a plus for me. It is better to speak directly about such matters.
And Bernstein said that the Nobel prize was 2 percent at the top of the bubble. So he was saying there is an error. And of course Shiller has said indirectly that there is an error. And Wade Pfau has said that he views the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies as “dangerous.” They are dangerous because they are in error. And the thousands of our fellow community members who expressed a desire that honest posting be permitted at our boards were indirectly saying that those studies are in error.
And of course your yourself indirectly have said that the studies are in error through your behavior over the past 15 years. If you didn’t think the studies were in error, you obviously would not have behaved as you have.
And all of this will be widely discussed in the days following the next crash, when millions of middle-class people will see 50 percent of their life savings go “poof!” and will be looking to find out who is responsible so that they can hang those people from a tree.
If there is a worse retirement plan than landing in a prison cell for your remaining days, I have never heard of it, my good friend. Not this boy, you know? Any plan that lands you in a prison cell is a bad plan, in my assessment.
I’ll take the plan where I get a $500 million settlement and no prison sentence. Call me madcap.
Rob
“I’ll take the plan where I get a $500 million settlement and no prison sentence. Call me madcap.”
I would rather take my current $5+ million portfolio versus your fairytale windfall and prison fantasy. I doubt there is anyone alive that would take it any other way, including you, but you can’t admit it since your hocomania routine would come to an end.
“How many $500 million checks do you have supporting your retirement, Anonymous?
I have a funny feeling that I will manage to struggle by somehow.
The horror! The horror!”
If your retirement, and the welfare of your family, relies upon getting a settlement payment if any kind, then I agree that it will be a horror.
“zero percent of the peer-reviewed research shows that Buy-and-Hold can ever produce good long-term results.”
Show us just one example where a well diversified portfolio of low cost index funds have ever resulted in a failed retirement. Also show us just one successful retirement that based on VII.
I would rather take my current $5+ million portfolio versus your fairytale windfall and prison fantasy. I doubt there is anyone alive that would take it any other way, including you, but you can’t admit it since your hocomania routine would come to an end.
I wish you the best of luck with it.
Rob
If your retirement, and the welfare of your family, relies upon getting a settlement payment if any kind, then I agree that it will be a horror.
I guess I wish ME the best of luck with it too!
Take care, man.
Rob
Show us just one example where a well diversified portfolio of low cost index funds have ever resulted in a failed retirement. Also show us just one successful retirement that based on VII.
Look at the peer-reviewed research that Wade and I co-authored and you’ll get the idea, Anonymous. Failing to exercise price discipline ALWAYS dramatically increases risk while also ALWAYS dramatically reducing return. There has never been a single exception in the history of the stock market.
Not every Buy-and-Hold retirement fails. But lots of them do. And, even if your retirement does not fail, how does it help you to obtain much lower returns at much higher risk? It would be better just to follow a research-based strategy.
And then there are the effects that the economic crises caused by Buy-and-Hold have on our economic system. Investors who follow Buy-and-Hold strategies but are not yet retirement age lose large portions of their life savings and then cut back on spending, causing hundreds of thousands of businesses to fail and causing millions of workers to lose their jobs. How does that help anyone?
I am going to continue posting honestly re the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research in this field.
I wish you all good things.
Rob
“Not every Buy-and-Hold retirement fails”
Yet you can’t even show us just one that failed and you can’t show us one single VII that resulted in a successful retirement. Sorry, but I go with the track record and not just your interpretation of what you think will happen someday. Even your hero Shiller is in the market.
“Look at the peer-reviewed research that Wade and I co-authored and you’ll get the idea, Anonymous.”
I don’t see anything that lists you as a co-author.
Your entire diatribe is what you think will happen “someday”. Someday we will see a historic crash. Someday Bogle will give his speech. Someday the New York Times will feature Rob Bennett on the front page. Someday Rob will save his financial bind when he receives a windfall from the con-men. Someday Robs detractors will go to prison. Someday Rob will be allowed back on the financial boards.
Basically, you sit around and wait for “Someday”.
Meanwhile, Americans everywhere have decided not to wait and take action (instead of waiting) and secure their financial future.
Yet you can’t even show us just one that failed and you can’t show us one single VII that resulted in a successful retirement. Sorry, but I go with the track record and not just your interpretation of what you think will happen someday. Even your hero Shiller is in the market.
I don’t have records of every retirement that has taken place. But there obviously have been retirements that have failed. And I am the co-author of peer-reviewed research that shows that failing to exercise price discipline ALWAYS dramatically increases risk while also ALWAYS dramatically diminishing long-term returns. So I think it is fair to say that the promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies has caused many failed retirements.
The peer-reviewed research that I co-authored with Wade is based on the 147 years of historical return data available to us today. That IS the track record. Through the entire history of the stock market, exercising price discipline has been a plus. Following a Buy-and-Hold strategy has always been a negative. Get Rich Quick approaches hurt individual investors. And anything that hurts millions of investors eventually hurts us all collectively. The promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies causes economic crises.
Shiller is indeed my hero. As is Bogle. BOTH of them are in the market. But there are many different ways to be in the market. Shiller is not in the market in the same way that Bogle is in the market. Nor is Shiller in the market in the same way that I am in the market. I am not in the market at all today. Shiller is. His circumstances are different. And I believe that his understanding of how the market works is somewhat different than mine. We both believe that valuations affect long-term returns. But my belief that valuations affect long-term returns has probably led me to some beliefs that Shiller’s belief that valuations affect long-term returns has not led him to. What of it? He invests his money and I invest my money. That’s how it should be.
I don’t say that everyone should invest in the same way. Everyone should invest in the way that he thinks best. I do say that everyone should post honestly. If Mel Linduaer says that he thinks Buy-and-Hold is best, he is doing the right thing because that is what he sincerely believes to be the case. If Rob Bennett says that he thinks Buy-and-Hold is best, he is committing financial fraud because Rob Bennett doesn’t think for two seconds that Buy-and-Hold is best. I should say what I think is best — Valuation-Informed Indexing.
My sincere take.
Rob
I don’t see anything that lists you as a co-author.
And yet you know that that’s what I was. And you pretend otherwise.
It is proper that my name is not on the paper because I do not possess the academic credentials needed to have my name on the paper. But it was also proper for Wade to be up-front and honest in his dealings with people by telling them that I was the primary developer and promoter of the Valuation-Informed Indexing concept for years before he came on the scene, that he learned most of what he knows about VII from me and that he thought that the VII concept was so important that he asked me to help write the paper with him and offered effusive praise for my contributions on numerous occasions. And then of course you Goons (with Bogle’s implicit support) threatened to destroy his career if he continued speaking honestly and he agreed to go to the Goon side so that he could continue to feed his family.
Following the next crash, there will be millions of middle-class investors who will have lost 50 percent or more of their life savings as a result of this 15-year cover-up, the biggest act of financial fraud in the history of the United States. I will tell the story of what happened to those people and you will be prosecuted for your crimes and a jury will determine the length of your prison sentence. That’s how our system of justice works. I am 100 percent confident that our system of justice will do right by all of us in the end.
Do I like it that our system does not produce instant results? Of course not. But no system does. And I do believe that our system is the best system on Planet Earth. I believe that it will produce the right result in time and I believe that that’s the best that can be done on this planet of flawed humans. So I will let the thing play out. I will continue to post honestly with sadness that so many lives are in the process of being unnecessarily destroyed but also with full cheerful confidence that we will all in days to come enjoy all the good that follows from Shiller’s “revolutionary” research findings of 1981.
I hope that works for you, my good friend.
Rob
Your entire diatribe is what you think will happen “someday”. Someday we will see a historic crash. Someday Bogle will give his speech. Someday the New York Times will feature Rob Bennett on the front page. Someday Rob will save his financial bind when he receives a windfall from the con-men. Someday Robs detractors will go to prison. Someday Rob will be allowed back on the financial boards.
Basically, you sit around and wait for “Someday”.
Meanwhile, Americans everywhere have decided not to wait and take action (instead of waiting) and secure their financial future.
It’s not like I have any other options available to me, Anonymous. I care about my fellow community members. I believe that the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research is legitimate research. I am physically incapable of saying that I believe that the retirement study posted at John Greaney’s web site contains a valuation adjustment. Thousands of people have looked at his study and not one has ever been able to identify a valuations adjustment in it. I cannot help by wonder why.
I’ve done lots of things over the past 15 years. Lots and lots and lots of things. More than anyone else alive. By a factor of at least 20. I have done my part.
If the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research is legitimate research (I believe that it is), we will see another stock crash in the next year or two or three. We saw in the crash of 2008 that many people become more open to listening to new ideas when they have seen a big portion of their life savings disappear. So I have good reason to believe that that will happen again following the next crash. When that happens, we will be able to open a few sites to honest posting re safe withdrawal rates and scores of other critically important investment-related topics. Once people see all the benefits of opening up a site to honest posting and permitting a learning experience to develop, more and more will follow the lead of those early sites and all of our lives will just get better and better and better as our collective knowledge of how stock investing works in the real world spreads and spreads and spreads.
My normal human brain is not able to imagine any possible downside to this way of proceeding.
Has your far superior Goon brain been able to come up with anything?
Rob
“I don’t have records of every retirement that has taken place. But there obviously have been retirements that have failed”
You said buy and hold never works, yet you cant even give us a link to even one failure. Big time fail.
You said buy and hold never works, yet you cant even give us a link to even one failure. Big time fail.
The peer-reviewed research that I co-authored with Wade tells the tale, Anonymous. In the days following the next price crash, we will get that research paper featured on the front page of the New York Times and it will offer hope to millions of middle-class people who will have seen their lives all but destroyed by your huge age of financial fraud.
People will need hope at that time. The front-page article on that hugely important research will be a big success, not a fail at all.
My sincere take.
Rob
“I’ve done lots of things over the past 15 years. Lots and lots and lots of things. ”
And an infant soils lots and lots of diapers. Which doesn’t convince anyone that the infant is really on to something. Nor does it generate a dime of income.
So based on real world results, your “lots of things” amount to exactly the same as a pile of soiled diapers.
Okay, Anonymous.
I wish you all good things, in any event.
Rob
“The peer-reviewed research that I co-authored with Wade tells the tale, Anonymous.”
See, you still can’t point to one person that failed with buy and hold and you still lie about being a co-author, when everyone can see for themselves that you are lying. Yep. Big time fail.
Okay, Anonymous.
Please take good care.
Rob
“I’ve done lots of things over the past 15 years. Lots and lots and lots of things. ”
And you were paid how much for this “work”, other than The $500 million you hope the tooth fairy brings?
People don’t just hand one money for no reason. People earn money by adding value to the world. I have added enormous value to the world with my work of the past 15 years. Nothing could be more clear. You Goons would obviously not have risked prison by threatening Wade Pfau if you didn’t see the huge power of the peer-reviewed research that we co-authored to change the world’s understanding of how stock investing works.
I will collect my money, Anonymous. We have a system of justice that aids people in their collection of money owed them in circumstances like this and it is a good system. And $500 million is a lot of money. My family is going to be set for a long time to come.
I am grateful for the opportunities that were opened to me as a result of the creation of this powerful new communications medium.
Rob
“People don’t just hand one money for no reason. People earn money by adding value to the world. I have added enormous value to the world with my work of the past 15 years. ”
People haven’t handed over money as they don’t see any value. You have gotten paid exactly what your opinions are worth. $ZERO.
We disagree.
That said, I naturally wish you the best of luck in all your future life endeavors.
Rob
“I will collect my money, Anonymous. We have a system of justice that aids people in their collection of money owed them in circumstances like this and it is a good system. And $500 million is a lot of money. My family is going to be set for a long time to come.”
People run scams all the time, trying to get paid. Most don’t work. You better plan on a backup plan for the sake of your family.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Rob