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 I saw 200 Buy-and-Holders endorse Greaney’s death threats, I knew that it was garbage. ”
If you can provide me with a link to the actual death threat the the 200 endorsements, I will personally apologize to you on this board. I will then call Wade Pfau and tell him that he should start working with you again. Next, I will contact the New York Times and tell them to feature you on the front page. Lastly, I will change my entire investment strategy to that of VII.
Okay, so let’s see the link to the actual death threat. Unless there is no death threat. If you don’t provide a link, I can only assume that there never was a death threat and then you owe everyone out there an apology for lying about it all these years.
I will wait for your response.
I could provide a link. But there is nothing that I can do to hold you to the promises that you make above. If you were a person who kept his promises, we never would have seen the death threats in the first place. You were required to promise to follow the published rules of the Motley Fool site before you were permitted to post there.
I have provided links in the past and it never accomplished anything. I need others to help me insure that there are consequences that follow when you engage in criminal behavior. I have not been able to get others to do that for 17 years now. The trouble is that many people want to believe that the numbers on their portfolio statement are real and rationalize away your behavior. They tell themselves that it is not a big deal. Others do not like the abusive behavior and would like to be able to participate in civil discussions of the last 38 years of research. But people in that group are afraid to speak up because they have seen you behave in the way that you do and they have seen you suffer no consequences and they are thus afraid to call you out on your b.s.
The question is — Will all this change in the days following the next price crash? I believe that it will. I believe that providing links then will bring results. And so I will supply them then.
For now, people can look at your comments here and figure out what the problem is. It’s not at all hard for any fair-minded person to get the general idea. If there are not enough of us today to take us to where we all deep in our hearts want to go, that of course makes me sad. But I continue to believe that there will be enough down the line a bit. So we will all move forward then.
I wish you all good things.
Rob
I have seen a long list of people that have investigated your claims of death threats. Not one person could find any proof. The burden of proof falls on you as you are the only one making the claim.
Will my ability to meet the burden of proof change in the days following the next price crash? That’s the question on the table today.
There are people who don’t like it that there have been death threats but who are afraid to speak out today because they have seen what happens to people who speak honestly re these matters. I understand where those people are coming from because I was essentially one of them myself from May 1999 (when I put my first post to the Motley Fool board) until May 2002 (when I finally worked up the courage to say publicly that I did not believe that Greaney’s retirement study contains an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins).
The thing that caused me to work up the courage to cross the line was the smear campaign that Greaney led against Wanderer when Wanderer said that he thought that there were circumstances in which it could be a good idea to invest in real estate. Wanderer was our best poster and I loved that board community. So I could no longer live with myself if I didn’t do something. So things had reached a point where the cost of remaining quiet was greater than the cost of posting honestly. So I crossed the line.
We need to see that happen with lots of other people. Most people don’t even know who Wanderer is. So the smear campaign that Greaney launched against Wanderer is not going to bring other people around in the way that it brought me around. But losing 50 percent or more of their retirement savings may do it. That will mean that people’s hopes for their financial future will be crushed. People will be reading about how tens of thousands of businesses have failed. They will be reading about how millions of workers have lost their jobs. They will be seeing political frictions get worse and worse. I believe that all that may bring people around. I believe that in the days following the next price crash we may be seeing millions of people experience the sort of conversion experience that I experienced in the days following Greaney’s smear campaign against Wanderer in February 2002.
We are not going to see millions flip overnight. But within a few months we might see enough flip that we get the percentage of the population that believes that Shiller’s research tells us something important about how stock investing works move from 10 percent to 20 percent. That could prove to be a very big change. There are things that the Buy-and-Holders are able to get away with today when the percentage is only 10 percent that they will not be able to get away with when the percentage has increased to 20 percent. So that nature of the discussions will change significantly. As the discussions become more balanced, people will be able to hear both sides of the story. When people are able to hear both sides of the story, conditions will be right for the percentage to go even higher, to 30 percent, and then to 40 percent, and then to 50 percent, and then higher.
It’s an astounding reality that we are only at 10 percent after the publication of 38 years of peer-reviewed research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. That is an amazing reality. There are huge amounts of money to be made offering honest, research-based investment advice. So you would think that there would be many smart and good people rushing in to mine Shiller gold. But we obviously have not seen that. We have seen some rush in. Rob Arnott. Wade Pfau. John Walter Russell. Microlepsis. John Craig. Me. There are others. But that group has just not been large enough to get the job done. We don’t have enough people to turn to for help when we are attacked. And so we self-censor ourselves just so that we can avoid being silenced altogether. And that means that statements put forward by Buy-and-Holders remain unchallenged and as a people we remain in our general ignorance about foundational principles re how stock investing works.
We need to get that percentage up to make significant forward movement. And, once we get it up, that forward movement can come very quickly. Lots of groundwork has been laid over the past 38 years by that vanguard 10 percent. We’ve got the research that we need to make our case effectively. We’ve got responses to every challenge that could possibly be directed at us. We’ve got calculators. We’ve got podcasts. We’ve got graphics. We’ve got everything. We’ve got everything today but the courage to post honestly in the face of the hurricane of abuse that is directed at anyone who dares to speak in a clear and honest way about what Shiller’s research teaches us all about how stock investing works in the real world.
Most people are not terribly interested in theory. Most people are interested only in real-world, practical stuff. Buy-and-Hold failed the intellectual, theoretical test back in 1981. That’s a long time ago. But never in those 38 years have we seen millions of people lose a large portion of their life savings because of Buy-and-Hold. We have not once since 1981 seen a bull/bear cycle come to an end. It is when a bull/bear cycle comes to an end that Buy-and-Hold delivers its most horrible pain. We can point to how Buy-and-Hold has done this in the past, in the Great Depression, in the stagflation of the 1970s, in the near depression that we experienced in the early years of the 20th Century. But there are very few people still alive who personally experienced the Great Depression. There are people who experienced the stagflation of the 1970s but that third Buy-and-Hold Crisis was the least horrible of the four crises that were caused by this theory.
So most people are not alarmed by the mistake at the core of the Buy-and-Hold concept, So even people that go to the trouble to understand that arguments of the Valuation-Informed Indexers are not concerned enough about the mistakes at the core of the Buy-and-Hold concept to take action to get them fixed. The downside of Buy-and-Hold is not clear to people living today because as of this moment in time Buy-and-Hold is telling us that our stock portfolios are worth two times what they really are worth and that seems like a good thing. And the price of speaking out is very high, as my personal experience testifies very strongly. So most people conclude that the prudent thing is to keep it zipped. And as a nation we remain locked in our ignorance of the realities.
Does a 60 percent price crash change that? That question is the entire ball of wax at this point, Anonymous.
I think that a 60 percent price crash that remains in place for a good bit of time is going to change things. I could be wrong. I thought that Greaney’s smear campaign against me would be brought to an end by the site administrator at Motley Fool within two or three days. So I do not have a perfect record when it comes to speculating how things are going to play our re this matter. If you want to say that I am wrong and that a 60 percent price crash will have no effect, you can say that.
But that’s not what I believe. I believe that a 60 percent price crash will cause lots of people to stop and think. And I believe that we only need to get the percentage who have doubts about Buy-and-Hold up from 10 percent to 20 percent to bring about an amazing leap forward in our nation’s understanding of how stock investing works. I think that we are standing on the threshold of one of the most exciting learning experiences that we have ever enjoyed.
I think that the shift from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing is the personal finance equivalent for the cure for cancer. We have the cure in our hands. We have tested it and 100 percent of the evidence available to us tells us that the cure works. But the people who make money in cancer treatment centers don’t want millions of people to learn about the cure and have engaged in criminal acts to keep knowledge from advancing. All that we need to advance is a little more courage but we cannot get to first base in our efforts to educate every investor on the planet to the true realities of stock investing until as a people we work up a bit more courage to take on your Goons.
I think that a 60 percent price crash is going to do the trick. But we are just going to have to wait a bit to find out for sure. I naturally wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors regardless of which way things go.
I am the one putting forward a new idea and so I am the one carrying the burden of proof. In ordinary circumstances, 38 years of peer-reviewed research would be enough to get the job done. These are not ordinary circumstances. Getting stock investing right is so important and this is so lucrative a field that we have powerful forces working against us as a nation as we try to consider these matters. We are going to need a shock to the system to change the conditions on which discussions are held enough for us all to make the trip from the horrible place where we reside today to the wonderful place where deep in our hearts we all want to be tomorrow. I believe that a 60 percent price crash will break down that wall of ignorance and set us free from the Buy-and-Hold Idea that price discipline is not required when buying stocks for ever and ever. But we are just going to have to wait a bit to find out for sure.
I hope that works for you, dear Goon friend.
Burden-of-Proof-Carrying Rob
After rereading these words, I feel the need to put forward an addendum to them.
Valuation-Informed Indexing is the new idea, Buy-and-Hold is the long-established strategy, the dominant model today for understanding how stock investing works. So, yes, I carry the burden of proof when it comes to persuasion. People who hear my words should be skeptical of them because they challenge conventional thinking, thinking held and advanced by millions of good and smart people. The burden of proof is on me when it comes to PERSUASION.
But the burden of proof is not on me when it comes to whether or not I should post my honest views. People who hold minority viewpoints are required in our society to post their honest beliefs. If I were to say that I believe that Greaney’s retirement study contains an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins, I would be guilty of financial fraud. I obviously do not believe that. There are thousands and thousands of posts in the record in which I state very forcefully that I do not believe that. I hold a minority viewpoint. I am required by the laws of the United States to express that minority viewpoint each time that I speak re these matters. That’s as clear as anything could be clear.
This difference in how the two burdens of proof are set up is critical to the proper working of our economic and political systems. It would be a bad idea if we all changed our views on important issues each time some fellow or gal came along and expressed a new idea. That would be a disaster. So we have a social norm that says that new ideas must be challenged, that the burden of proof must be placed on the person advancing the new idea. All of that is right and just and proper and life-affirming. So one of the two burdens of proof really us on me.
But the other burden of proof — the burden that must be met for you Goons to avoid prison time — is on you Goons. People should not be easily persuaded of what I have to say. But I don’t have to persuade anyone of anything to win the right to post honestly. That is established in our society’s social norms and indeed in our criminal code (which of course has its roots in our long-held social norms). I have an absolute right to post honestly, as does everyone else. Even if it turned out that you were right about Buy-and-Hold, you would still be guilty of crimes when you advanced death threats and when you threatened to get Wade Pfau fired from his job and so on. That stuff is completely over the line even though my viewpoints on how stock investing works are minority viewpoints.
Now — the practical reality is that you are not going to be prosecuted for your crimes unless as a society we come to have serious enough doubts about Buy-and-Hold for a significant number of people (more than 10 percent of the population!) to be concerned about the effects of your criminal acts on our entire society. Not every criminal transgression is prosecuted. Not every person who commits a crime lands in a prison cell.
If a significant percentage of the populations becomes concerned about what has happened to them after they lose 60 percent or more of their life savings, you will go to prison. If no one becomes concerned, or if only the 10 percent who currently are concerned are concerned at that time, you will in a practical sense be off the hook. I believe that we are going to see more people become concerned in the days following the next price crash. But we of course are going to have to wait to see how that one plays out.
There are two burdens of proof. One is on the substance issue — Can Buy-and-Hold work, given the 38 years of peer-reviewed research showing that valuations affect long-term returns? The burden of proof is on me re that one. The other burden of proof is on the question of whether I have a right to post honestly and whether people who are interested in hearing what I have to say have a right to hear what I have to say even though you Goons would prefer it if people could not hear the minority viewpoint expressed on every discussion board and blog on the internet. Re that one, the burden of proof is on you Goons.
We have as a society adopted laws protecting the expression of minority viewpoints. We believe as a society that it is important that new ideas be entertained. Even though most new ideas are not going to pan out, it is important that death threats and threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs not be permitted because in a small number of cases new ideas will prove to have great value and, unless we protect those ideas from criminal acts of the people who profit in some way from the continued promotion of the old ideas, we will never hear the new ideas that are the lifeblood of our system. It is new ideas that make our economy so productive that our stock market has been able to generate an average annual return of 6.5 percent real for many, many years. Cut off the possibility of new ideas ever again being heard because established interests prefer to see people continuing to believe in the old ideas and we are all a far poorer people than we have ever been at earlier times in the history of the United States.
I am 100 percent confident that I can meet the burden of proof that will rightly be imposed on me to show that Valuation-Informed Indexing is superior to Buy-and-Hold so long as the burden of proof is imposed on those who have elected to engage in criminal behavior to block people from hearing the case for the new model. I will be interesting to see how things play out in the days following the next price crash.
My best wishes to you, Goon friend.
New-Ideas-Guy Rob
The burden of proof falls on you the minute you make the claim. Need an example? If a person is accused of a crime, a prosecutor cannot file charges without some level of evidence to back up the charge (claim). That prosecutor can’t say “let’s put this person in jail and then we will wait for some future event to see if we actually think he did the crime. So, why would the burden be different for you? Why would there even be a change in burden. It is simple. If you make a claim it is your obligation. If this was not the case I could just say that Rob Bennett hit me. He needs to go to jail for assault. Wouldn’t you expect that I would have the burden of proving that you assaulted me?
I made a claim on the morning of May 13, 2002, that the retirement study posted at John Greaney’s site lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. The study hasn’t been corrected to this day.
I made the claim and I provided a link to Greaney’s study at the time and my claim checked out. The study doesn’t get corrected just because I provide a link anymore than you Goons get sent to prison just because I provide a link showing that you made death threats. What stands in the way? The Get Rich Quick urge that resides within all of us.
100 percent of the population can easily see that the Greaney study lacks a valuation adjustment and 100 percent of the population can easily see that you Goons have engaged in criminal behavior. And, indeed, 10 percent of the population of all of the boards and blogs has expressed a desire that something be done about you Goons. But 90 percent keep quiet no matter how abusive you become. Why? They like thinking that their retirement account is worth two times what it is really worth and Buy-and-Hold assures them that that is so while this Rob Bennett fellow is saying that it is NOT so. So, if this Rob Bennett fellow gets banned, that’s too bad for him, you know? At least he will not be able to say that sort of thing at the sites I visit anymore, right?
The battle that has been raging since the morning of May 13, 2002, has been a battle between Get Rich Quick (Buy-and-Hold) and research-based (Valuation-Informed Indexing) strategies. For the time being, Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold is far more popular. But will that continue to be the case after a price crash wipes out the added returns provided by the Get Rich Quick approach?
I don’t believe that it will continue to be the case. But the only way to prove it is to wait and see whether people’s views re Buy-and-Hold change when their retirement accounts are wiped out.
Links are not the issue here. It’s the power of the Get Rich Quick urge that resides within all of us that is the issue. We can gain some control over our Get Rich Quick urge by paying attention to what the peer-reviewed research in this field has been trying to teach us for 38 years now. But 90 percent of us do not want to!
For the time-being.
I think we are going to see in the days following the next price crash that we have no choice.
But I am just one guy. I get one vote, like everybody else.
Rob
Like always, you change the subject. You made a claim of death threats. You have been asked for proof. As above, if so claim that you assaulted me, you would say that I need to prove that accusation. Why the double standard?
I’ve provided links to the death threats on numerous occasions. If you were honest, you would acknowledge that.
What matters is what the jury says. The jury will get the links and the jury will decide on the length of your prison sentence. That’s how our system works.
But I don’t think that the jury is going to be called before the next price crash. I think it is going to happen after the next price crash. I think that people need to see the consequences of a pure Get Rich Quick approach before they will develop an interest in the 38 years of peer-reviewed research showing why Buy-and-Hold never works in the long term.
We’ll see.
Rob
Prove me wrong. Post the link.
Prove me wrong. Show me where the valuation adjustment is in Greaney’s retirement study.
Rob