Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail sent to me by Academic Researcher Wade Pfau on April 6, 2012. I responded within an hour. The text of my response is set forth below.
Wade:
Thanks.
I need to get out the door to attend some Good Friday services.
I will get back to you either late today or more likely tomorrow.
I didn’t want you to think that I was not responding because of some sort of anger or something.
Rob
I sent a follow-up response later that day. The text is set forth below.
Wade:
I agree 100 percent when you say “I’m doing what I can.” You have done numerous hugely constructive things. There is no one I can think of who has done more. Re this there is zero dispute.
I agree to a point and disagree to a point when you say that “the way that is best done is to provide new research.”
Providing new research is certainly constructive. That’s clear’y a great thing to do.
But is that response mutually exclusive with the response of pointing out the errors in the Old School studies and getting them corrected?
I put up the post pointing out the errors in the Old School research on May 13, 2002. The Retirement Risk Evaluator was published a few years later, MANY years prior to the many recent media reports that finally
report that the Old School studies get the numbers wrong.
I am not a researcher. I did not have the skills needed to create that calculator on my own. If I had not put forward a post pointing out the errors in the Old School studies, John Walter Russell would never have started doing his research and we would not have that calculator today.
ALL of Russell’s research (some of the most important research that has ever been done in this field, in my assessment) exists because I put that post to that board and we thereby connected. It’s the same with the Return Predictor and the Scenario Surfer and my 200 podcasts and every entry in my three weekly columns. None of that material would exist if I had not had help from John and from hundreds of other community members who connected with me because of that post
and the discussion it generated (still going strong today ten years later!).
And to the extent I have helped you, that help wouldn’t have been provided had I not written that post. Anything that you read by me from my Vanguard Diehard days was the product of work effort that followed from the May 13, 2002, post.
You are doing fantastic work, Wade. I know I have said this many times and I know that I have never said otherwise because the thought that there could be an otherwise has never entered my brain. But there
are many roads to Dublin, to quote a phrase. Pointing out the errors in the studies is important work too.
Say that we get the ban lifted. Microlepsis was one of the most effective and most popular posters at Diehards. John D Craig was another. Retire at 48 was another. All were banned when the board moved to Bogleheads. It’s not just Rob Bennett who would be posting there if honest posting were permitted. Lots of people who were banned because they posted honestly would be there and lots of people who silence themselves on important points today would be speaking up if there were not punishments exacted for doing that.
Rober Shiller has said in interviews that he has never told us all he knows about investing because he would be considered “unprofessional” if he did so. Robert Shiller! This guy has tenure! At Yale! And he doesn’t dare cross the Goons. There is a serious problem here, Wade.
You do something very smart in seeking feedback at Bogleheads. It’s a great way to learn about the strong and weak points of a line of research before getting too formal with it. That’s a huge plus of this new communications medium that I’d like to see lots of people taking advantage of.
But not at the price of their personal integrity! Death threats? Defamation? Threats to get people fired from their jobs? Huh?
This stuff is not slightly unethical, Wade. It is so far over the line that, if we tolerate this stuff, there is no longer a line. We cannot become cannibals. When we give a Lindauer or a Greaney veto power over what is said on the internet, we compromise ourselves in very, very serious ways. This is a money field. This is not a field in which any of us can afford to do that.
Research must be subject to challenge. If it’s not, it’s not science. You submit yourself to peer review. What the heck good is peer review if there is an understanding that research done in this field is never to be corrected no matter how wrong and dangerous it turns out to be?
I’ll tell you why I think you got upset about the Bill Bengen thread. I think you know on some level of consciousness that I am right. And I think you feel that I am questioning your ethics.
I am! Not just yours, though. I am questioning the ethics of every person who has seen that those studies have not been corrected and has failed to do anything about it. The entire field is corrupt, Wade. That sounds like an extreme statement but it really is just a statement of obvious objective fact. So many people got so many things so wrong that we have all adopted a policy of not “telling” on anyone. So the mistakes just get worse and worse.
I want to take it the other way.
That does NOT mean that I have it in for Bill Bengen or John Bogle or John Greaney or anyone else. I do not. I like all those people. I’ve learned from them all. I am trying to help them all.
I suggested to Greaney very early on that he join me in writing a New School study. He would be famous today! He turned me down. But he could have done that.
Bengen can do a new study. He can make it better than his old one. I would be thrilled to help him out. I bet you would be too. I bet the entire Bogleheads board would be if a few troublemakers were shown the door first.
The learning process begins with the admission of mistakes. There is nothing whatsoever bad about admitting mistakes. People would LOVE Bill if he would openly admit his mistake and then get about the business of doing a better job. People would love Bogle if he would admit his mistakes and then get about the business of doing a better job. This sort of thing is done in other fields ALL THE TIME. It’s InvestoWorld that is weird.
I’ll tell you the core problem.
We are in the early days of understanding how stock investing works. Our knowledge today is primitive. We do not know it all. And that scares us. So we act like we do.
If we could just admit that, we could learn bunches. By getting so full of ourselves, we close the door to all sorts of wonderful advances.
There are lines of research that you cannot even imagine today. You are thinking too small. You are trying to follow in the footsteps of people who came before you when you have the opportunity to go to places to which they never went.
Yes, do that new research. That’s A+ stuff. But also please try to understand that it’s important that we get lots of other people doing A+ research. And to do that, we need to make clear as a community that we don’t think we know it all, that we understand that the purpose of the research is to help investors and that part of our responsibility in that regard is to correct mistakes and that we all favor the openness to new ideas that has long been characteristic of our society outside of the investing realm.
Does any of this make sense? Does it click?
It’s not “Do new research” or “Identify problems with old research.” It’s both! Both things are wonderful. Both things are needed. The idea that there is something wrong with admitting a mistake or something mean with pointing one out is killing us. I’m proud that I was the person who discovered the errors in those studies! And properly so!
Rob
ALL of Russell’s research (some of the most important research that has ever been done in this field, in my assessment)
Do you know of any other researcher who has cited Russell’s work?
Do you know of any researcher who longs to be subjected to death threats and thousands of cases of defamation and threats to get him fired from his job?
We will have hundreds of academic researchers producing honest investing research when those who have posted in “defense” of the Lindauerheads and the Greaney Goons have been placed in jail cells, Evidence.
Wade loved producing honest and accurate research. Until he learned what the consequences were that followed from that.
I have a funny hunch that he is not the only researcher in this field who feels that way about things. We need to as a society permit honest and accurate investing research. Then we will get it. Lots of it.
Please take good care.
Rob
This is why I have been arguing for years now that we need to get John Bogle to walk to the front of a big room and give an “I Was Wrong” speech. If Bogle acknowledges the dangers of Buy-and-Hold, that will be written up on the front page of the New York Times.
That will launch the national debate on how stock investing really works that we need to recover from this economic crisis. I guaranty you that John Walter Russell’s work will be featured prominently in that debate. John will be getting a joint Nobel prize (with Wade).
There’s amazing power in acknowledging your mistakes. All learning experiences begin with an acceptance of the obvious reality that you weren’t born knowing it all perfectly.
Hang in there, good buddy.
Rob
Could you produce any evidence that a researcher has been subject to death threats?
John will be getting a joint Nobel prize (with Wade)
No he won’t
John Bogle will not be giving an “I was wrong” speech about the dangers of buy and hold because he understands math.
Unlike you.
Rob, you just proved you know as much about the Nobel Prize as you do SWRs, finance and investing.
Could you produce any evidence that a researcher has been subject to death threats?
Here’s the About page, Evidence:
http://arichlife.passionsaving.com/about/
Rob
No he won’t
The alternative is that we go into the Second Great Depression, Evidence.
I hope John gets the Nobel prize to which he is entitled.
And I think it will turn out that way.
Rob
Unlike you.
I’m no math wiz, Evidence.
But I discovered the errors in the Old School SWR studies 10 years before any of the Big Shots in this field.
I must understand something reasonably well.
Rob
HINT: JWR is the wrong temperature.
Is there some rule that says that one has to be alive to be awarded the Nobel prize?
If there is, they should change it for John.
I believe they will.
We need a healing process. It would make lots of people feel a lot better about themselves to see John awarded that prize.
Especially given the abuse he was subject to from you Goons, Evidence.
Rob
Rob, you just proved you know as much about the Nobel Prize as you do SWRs, finance and investing.
I see it the other way, Drip Guy.
I am the one saying John should be awarded the prize (jointly with Wade).
Rob
Here’s the About page, Evidence:
http://arichlife.passionsaving.com/about
— There isn’t any evidence of death threats on that page.
Is there some rule that says that one has to be alive to be awarded the Nobel prize?
— Yes
If there is, they should change it for John.
— For a guy whose work has never been cited by a single researcher?
I believe they will.
— You are wrong about that, as with so many things.
“But I discovered the errors in the Old School SWR studies 10 years before any of the Big Shots in this field.”
No you didn’t. The only thing that was discovered was your lack of understanding of the studies.
For a guy whose work has never been cited by a single researcher?
Precisely so.
It’s the pioneers who do the most good and deserve the most applause.
If John had gotten the Nobel prize when he first published his research, Wade would not be in the situation he is in today.
We will have hundreds of honest Wades once we give the Nobel to John. It’s a win/win/win.
Rob
Would you rather that an investing researcher be honest or popular?
I know what I prefer.
Rob
The only thing that was discovered was your lack of understanding of the studies.
Good point, Evidence.
Rob
If John had gotten the Nobel prize when he first published his research, Wade would not be in the situation he is in today.
If John had done research worthy of a Nobel prize it would have been cited by other researchers.
That explains why Wade says that the Old School SWR studies get the numbers wildly wrong but that John Greaney is a hero for his 10-year-long Campaign of Terror against those of us who have been trying to get the studies corrected.
Truly outstanding!
Rob
Wade says that the Old School SWR studies get the numbers wildly wrong
He of course says no such thing.
John Greaney is a hero for his 10-year-long Campaign of Terror against those of us who have been trying to get the studies corrected.
The only Campaign of Terror is the one you have been waging against investing discussion boards, blogs and researchers.
The 15+ bannings send a clear message that the community does not need your business that bad.
He of course says no such thing.
He says the Old School studies are accurate.
Good point, Evidence.
Rob
The 15+ bannings send a clear message that the community does not need your business that bad.
The economic crisis sends a clear message that we need to bury this smelly Buy-and-Hold garbage 30 feet in the ground, where it can do no further harm to humans and other living things.
Don’t let the bad guys get you down, my old friend.
Rob
The economic crisis sends a clear message that we need to bury this smelly Buy-and-Hold garbage 30 feet in the ground, where it can do no further harm to humans and other living things.
The economic crisis didn’t have anything to do with Buy-and-Hold investing. But then you know that. Just as you know that the SWR accurately report what rate survived in the past.
The economic crisis didn’t have anything to do with Buy-and-Hold investing.
What’s a $12 trillion loss in buying power one way or the other?
No biggie, right?
Rob
Just as you know that the SWR accurately report what rate survived in the past.
My guess is that that’s why they have all along always referred to them as Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate studies.
I mean, come on.
Rob
There was no $12 trillion loss in buying power. You simply don’t understand the stock market.
I got lucky when I discovered the errors in the Old School SWR studies 10 years earlier than any of the big shots in this field.
I need to make more of an effort to keep that in mind.
Rob
The millions of unemployed feel a lot better today knowing that there really was no $12 trillion loss in buying power despite what that nasty John Bogle says. That fellow is just biased against Buy-and-Hold! What a troll!
He needs to listen to Lindauer and Greaney more before he mouths off again. Those guys know the score!
Rob
You didn’t discover any errors, you simply misunderstood the studies. You just need to work up the courage to say those three little words.
John Bogle never said there was a $12 trillion loss in buying power.
Truly outstanding!
Rob
I noticed that JD Roth will be the keynote speaker at the Financial Blogger conference.
He started his Get Rich Slowly blog around the same time you started your blog. Over the same time period he has built a massively successful blog with multiple contributors and a thriving discussion board.
You have no discussion board and no regular visitors other than those you dismiss as goons.
His blog was so successful that he received multiple offers to buy it. You have complained that you haven’t been able to make a living from your blog but the fault is entirely your own.
the fault is entirely your own.
I disagree, Evidence.
That’s like saying that it was entirely the fault of the blacks who wanted to be treated as equals at the beginning of the Civil Rights Era that people with black skin were not permitted to drink at public water fountains.
I didn’t make the mistake that transformed Buy-and-Hold into the purest and most dangerous Get Rich Quick scheme ever concocted by the human mind, Evidence. I am the one who has been trying for 10 years to get that mistake corrected.
I have extended the hand of kindness to the Buy-and-Holders. Had you taken my hand back in May 2000, you wouldn’t be facing a prison sentence and you wouldn’t have incurred hundreds of billions in legal liabilities over the past 10 years.
When you make a mistake in a retirement study, you need to correct it as soon as is humanly possible. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Our entire society shares a portion of the blame here. The personal financial journalists who fail to point out that John Bogle regularly talks out of both sides of his mouth share a portion of the blame. The academic researchers who give up their independence and personal integrity because they fear the crushing smear campaigns that Buy-and-Holders will direct at them if they report honestly what the data says share a portion of the blame. The financial planners who are more concerned with turning a quick buck than in helping their clients invest effectively for the long run share a portion of the blame. The bloggers who are more concerned with earning easy links than in exposing their readers to exciting new ideas share a portion of the blame.
I have not behaved perfectly myself. I knew about the errors in the Old School studies in May 1999, when I put my first post to Motley Fool. I was afraid of what Greaney would do to me if I posted honestly. Like all the others, I rationalized my cowardice. I told myself that I was doing enough good on the saving side that it was okay that I was failing to post in a completely honest way on the investing side. In my defense, I think it would be fair to say that I have compensated for the ethical failing over the past 10 years. Perhaps you’ve noticed, Evidence.
We have two choices today as a society. We can acknowledge that we are the most blessed group of investors in history and work together to teach everyone the realities as revealed by the last 30 years of academic research, thereby bringing on the greatest growth surge our economy has ever experienced. Or we can sit on our hands and nurse our stubborn pride while our economy continues its fall into the Second Great Depression and then we can all say “woe is us, who ever thought that banning honest posting on how we invest our retirement money would ever lead to something like this?”
I don’t control all the others, Evidence. All the others are going to do what all the others see fit to do.
I am going to continue to speak honestly on what the academic research says re safe withdrawal rates until I don’t have breath remaining to continue to do so. When I meet my Maker, I will be able to say that I gave this thing my best possible shot even if I don’t have too many other good things to point to in my record.
I hope you do what you think is right and that you find peace with whatever decision you make, my long-time abusive posting friend. You have my best wishes regardless of any behavior you engage in trying to keep middle-class investors from learning about the realities of stock investing. Courage, man!
Rob
His blog was so successful
How successful do you think J.D.’s blog will be when we are in the Second Great Depression, Evidence?
My guess is “not so successful.”
If J.D. could foresee the human suffering that will follow the next price crash, I believe that he would be running Guest Blog Entries on Valuation-Informed Indexing three times a week.
He doesn’t see the full picture. Nor does Bogle. Nor does Wade. Nor do you.
That’s why as a society we have adopted a social norm in favor of permitting people holding all points of view to post their sincere beliefs. We did that because wise people who came before us warned us what happens when we fail to follow such a social norm.
What you see in front of you is what happens.There’s a reason why every board and ever blog prohibits these tactics in its published rules.
J.D. is not an island. He lives in a community. When no one has the guts to speak up on behalf of the community when it is under attack by savages, we all lose.
My sincere take.
Rob
Have you been informed what your contribution to FinCon12 will be?
Will you be part of a panel or workshop or will you get to make your own presentation?
Part of the schedule is (Saturday, September 8th, 2012 8am State of the Financial Blogosphere)
I could see you being able to hold forth on a subject like the State of the Financial Blogosphere for hours on end.
You could explain to them that the whole Financial Blogosphere is a corrupt enterprise because of the ban on honest posting.
Will you be part of a panel or workshop or will you get to make your own presentation?
I’m on a three-person panel.
Rob
You could explain to them that the whole Financial Blogosphere is a corrupt enterprise because of the ban on honest posting.
You are right that I could indeed address myself to that topic and with a good bit of gusto, Evidence.
The part you are leaving out is that I would balance the words “we are all corrupt” with words that would argue that “we are also all wonderful” and that I would balance the words “things look dark right now” with the words “we have the potential in coming days to take things to places we never dreamed possible.”
Investing is done by humans, Evidence. Humans have a corrupt side. Perhaps you’ve noticed. If I close my eyes to what I see before me when I turn on my computer, I am not doing my job as a personal finance journalist.
I would be mistaken if I said that I see ONLY corruption. As you well know, I have never said that.
Yes, I say that Wade Pfau has disgraced himself by agreeing to dance the tune demanded by the Goons. Is that all that I have said about him? I have also said that Wade merits a Nobel prize for the research he has done. And that he is a super guy who tried to bring an end to the friction by thanking both me AND the Lindauerheads for helping him with his research. And that he showed a lot of courage when he sent that e-mail to the Trinity authors.
Yes, I say that Bogle has shamed himself by failing to take action re the Linduaer matter. Is that all that I have said about him? I have also said that he is my hero. I have said that the Indexing Revolution has done more to help middle-class investors than any other development I can think of. I have said that Bogle is the second most important investing analyst in history. I have said that Bogle built the foundation on which all of my work rests. I have said that there would be no Valuation-Informed Indexing without the contributions of Jack Bogle.
The Personal Finance Blogosphere has messed up. Big time. People are taking on huge financial liabilities. People are acting like fools. People are acting like they don’t care about their readers. People are letting bullies push them around. People are making big mistakes.
But my guess is that it is ultimately going to be the Personal Finance Blogosphere that is going to pull us out of this. Bloggers don’t make millions pushing Get Rich Quick strategies. I believe that after the next crash a few big-name bloggers will come on board, and, once others see that a few big shots have done it, lots will follow and we will all be off to the races.
I will work with anyone at any time and anywhere. I will bend over backwards to cooperate in any way I possibly can.
I won’t post dishonestly on the numbers my friends use to plan their retirements. That is of course an insane demand to make on anyone. There should not have been one person who applauded Greaney when he made that his demand. We f-ed up, Evidence.
Now what do we do about it? That’s the question on the table.
I say that we should recognize how blessed we are and start reaping the benefits of those great blessings.
What say you, Goon friend?
Rob
How successful do you think J.D.’s blog will be when we are in the Second Great Depression, Evidence?
My guess is “not so successful.”
If J.D. could foresee the human suffering that will follow the next price crash, I believe that he would be running Guest Blog Entries on Valuation-Informed Indexing three times a week.
In the event that we do end up in the Second Great Depression then the sort of common sense, well thought out, useful information that is the stock in trade of the Get Rich Slowly blog will be much more useful than the endless mountains of ill thought out nonsense that you spew forth at the drop of hat.
And that he showed a lot of courage when he sent that e-mail to the Trinity authors.
More courage than you have ever shown re the Trinity matter.
will be much more useful than the endless mountains of ill thought out nonsense that you spew forth at the drop of hat.
How do you think it is that with all the nonsense I spew I happened to be able to get the safe withdrawal rate right ten years before any of the big shots in this field, Evidence?
Was it just amazing luck?
Rob
More courage than you have ever shown re the Trinity matter.
I showed my courage on the morning of May 13, 2002, Evidence.
This isn’t a one-man job.
We need all the big newspapers working with us.
We need hundreds of millions of dollars from The Stock-Selling Industry to counter the hundreds of millions they have spent in recent decades promoting Buy-and-Hold.
We need the two major political parties getting involved. We need candidates for the House and Senate and Presidency addressing the true cause of the economic crisis and saying what they would do to bring it to a quick end.
What courage have you shown?
Have you told LIndauer and Greaney that the gig is up?
If not, what are waiting for?
Time’s a wasting, Goon Man.
Rob
Sadly you never did get the safe withdrawal rate right.
Good point, Evidence.
Please take good care.
Rob
I showed my courage on the morning of May 13, 2002, Evidence.
The only thing you showed on the morning of May 13, 2002 is that you didn’t understand the studies.
Here is that infamous post in all it’s glory.
http://boards.fool.com/price-adjusted-safe-withdrawal-rates-17209214.aspx
I am looking for a place to invest some money that came in when my wife and I recently moved to an area with somewhat lower housing prices. My inclination is to put it in ibonds, but I am not thrilled with the 2 percent real rate of return now being paid. I would like to be able to expect a real return of 3 percent or higher. However, I can’t afford to take much risk of a long-term loss of capital as I need most of the capital I now possess for my FIRE plan to remain viable.
Short-term losses of 20 or 25 percent are acceptable for a portion of my investment portfolio, but losses of greater than 15 percent that remain in place for longer than 8 years or so are problematic (these numbers are my rough estimates of the loss percentages and durations that might cause me to rethink an investment choice and move out of it, causing me to lose out on any future upside). So I have been trying to assess what the risk is of a loss of that size if I were to invest a portion of my money in stocks today.
I’ve considered moving a small amount of my total portfolio (about 10 percent) into stocks. As regular readers of my posts know, I am concerned with the high prices prevailing for many stocks today. My hope, however, is that I might be able to pick individual stocks that are not overvalued and thereby limit my risk of a long-term diminishment of capital. Still, I worry that, when most stocks are overvalued, all are probably at least somewhat overvalued. I don’t want to fool myself into thinking that I am so great at picking stocks that by superior selection skills I can completely overcome the risks that have caused some investors in earlier high-value markets to end up with losses from stock market investing rather than gains.
So I spent a little time playing with the numbers in the Safe Withdrawal Rate studies on RetireEarlyHomePage.com. I used the study put together by Dory36 because it did not require use of an Excel spreadsheet and I was just looking for some quick and dirty estimates of how things might turn out under different scenarios.
The assumptions I plugged in to get the calculator to run was that I was investing $800,000, with 80 percent in stocks and with the remainder in TIPS at a 3.5 percent real return, and withdrawing $32,000 per year to live on. None of these numbers are valid for my personal circumstances. I was just trying to plug in numbers to get the calculator to run.
The data that turned up for 1969 concerned me. As I read the data, it appeared to me that had I made an 80 percent stock allocation in 1969, I would now (31 years later) have lost all of my investment and be bankrupt. Is that true? It’s possible that I don’t understand how the calculator works, but that result was disturbing to me. The actual portflio figure that the calculator gave was that I would now have a negative $31,035. I don’t understand the concept of a negative portfolio value. That’s what makes me a little uncertain as to whether I am reading the results correctly.
Presuming that I am reading the results correctly, they make me uneasy about committing even a small amount of capital to stocks at the current prices. My understanding is that most historical valuation indicators show the stock market to be more overvalued today than it was in 1969. But I would like to have tools to use to determine when it is a good time to move into stocks (as I am persuaded by the historical evidence that in the long run stocks purchased at reasonable prices provide a better return than most other investment classes).
So I tried to think of a way to make the historical return data more relevant to the circumstances which people with money to invest today need to take into consideration. It seems to me that the big problem for people investing today is the high prices (in historical terms) attached to stock purchases today. So I think it would be a plus to have a calculator which allowed an adjustment in the safe withdrawal rate for people investing at time periods in which different price levels prevail.
What I am thinking would be useful is a calculator that allowed you to choose three options: (a) a purchase at a time period in which stocks were priced low, using the conventional valuation criteria; (b) a purchase at a time-period in which stocks were priced about average; and (c) a purchase at a time-period in which stocks were priced high. After entering your choice of (a), (b), or (c), the calculator would tell you what sort of long-term safe withdrawal rates were provided to other investors investing at similar price levels obtained in earlier historical periods.
My guess is that such a calculator would show an investor investing during a time when low stock prices prevail would be likely to obtain a safe withdrawal rate higher than the 4 percent return that the conventional calculators (those using all investment price levels in their data set) suggest. Presuming that we see such prices again in the future, that would allow people with money to invest at that time to retire with confidence of obtaining a long-term safe withdrawal rate greater than the safe withdrawal rates suggested by the conventional calculators (higher than the 4 percent figure we often hear cited on this board, that is).
On the other hand, it would show a lower safe withdrawal rate for investors putting money into stocks today. Personally, I would be willing to accept a safe withdrawal rate assumption of less than 4 percent, given the low rates paid by safe investments like ibonds today. However, if the modified calculator showed asafe wtthdrawal rate for stock investments made at today ‘s prices of less than 2 percent, my inclination would be to go with ibonds or some similar investment.
If anyone has seen any data of this type, I’d appreciate seeing a link. It may be possible for me to come up with rough numnbers myself using the data that Dory36 and intercst used in putting together their calculators, but I am less than comfortable with the use of spreadsheets, and I would have more confidence in the numbers put together by someone more math proficient than I.
The Post Heard ‘Round the World!
Rob
This isn’t a one-man job.
There is only one person who believes the stuff you produce and that is you. In 10 years you have not convinced a single person to join your crusade.
You have been catastrophically unproductive. Until you learn how to communicate successfully with others you are doomed to failure.
Wade Pfau doesn’t believe that Valuation-Informed Indexing works.
Good point, Evidence.
I forgot.
Rob
Typically being a jerk and wrong isn’t a great formula for success. But Rob just keeps doubling down!
I’m bad to the bone, What.
Everybody knows it too. That’s the thing.
Rob
I’m on a three-person panel.
Do you know who else will be on that panel and what the subject under discussion will be?
I do, Evidence.
I don’t believe that the topics of the various panels have been announced. I don’t want to be the one to spill the beans if they have not been announced yet. I’ll answer whatever questions I am able to answer after the announcements are made.
Rob
I received an e-mail this morning that had fairly wide distribution that lists the names of the panels and the people participating on them. So I think it is okay to give this information out now.
I am on a panel with Todd Tresidder and Mike Piper. The title of the presentation is “Financial Independence at Any Age.”
Rob
“I am on a panel with Todd Tresidder and Mike Piper”
Haven’t you called out both Todd and Mike for unethical behavior regarding their refusal to honestly discuss safe withdrawal rates?
I am friends with both Todd and Mike and I have great respect for the work done by both of them.
I have never seen Todd behave unethically. He has asked me to shorten some comments I put to his blog. That’s not unethical. He didn’t ask me to say anything untrue.
I didn’t like the idea of shortening the comments and I told him so. I think we all should be shouting from the rooftops that we now have a truly smart and truly safe and truly simple way to invest (Valuation-Informed Indexing). Shortening comments gives us less of an opportunity to get the word out. I want to tell the whole story and I want to tell it everywhere and I want to tell it with enthusiasm. The last thing I want to do is to suggest that those of us pushing Valuation-Informed Indexing have anything to be ashamed of or that we think Buy-and-Hold can work or anything like that.
So I do disagree with Todd on this point. But, no, I have never seen him do anything unethical. The reality is very much in the other direction. Todd wrote a FANTASTIC article pointing out the errors in the Old School SWR studies. He did this before there was a consensus on this point. That took a lot of guts and integrity. Also, a number of the articles pointing out the errors in the Old School studies failed to make note of the 10-year effort in the Retire Early and Indexing discussion-board communities to warn middle-class investors of the dangers of those studies. Todd noted my role in leading the effort. That also took guts. So you’re 100 percent wrong in what you say here in regard to Todd.
Re Mike, yes, it was unethical for him to ban honest posting at his site. I know that it troubled him greatly to do this. We exchanged numerous e-mails on the question. Mike very much wants to do the right thing. I also had a long discussion about it with him at last year’s personal finance blogger’s conference. He told me that there is “nothing I would like better” than to again permit honest posting at his site.
Mike is very afraid of the Goons, particularly Mel Lindauer. He has told me that he does not feel that death threats and defamation have any place in investing discussions. I know that that is true of 90 percent of our community members. People know Mel’s reputation. They know how brutal he is in his attacks. It certainly doesn’t help that Bogle has done nothing about the Lindauer matter despite numerous requests that he do so. People feel that the massive wealth of The Stock-Selling Industry is behind Mel and they are afraid to speak up.
I will talk with Mike again this year. I will urge him to try to work up more courage. I think he is a great guy. When I first asked to post a Guest Blog at his site, he had a great sense of humor about it. He said: “Oh sure, there’s nothing I want to do more than feature a guest blog saying that all I say here is wrong!” (That’s a paraphrase, not a correct quote.) THen he went ahead and ran the guest blog! That shows where the guy is coming from in his heart.
Mike and I also once discussed the idea of me not commenting at his blog on a daily basis but instead writing one regular Guest Blog each month giving those of his readers interested in Valuation-Informed Indexing the side of the story that his Buy-and-Hold readers are uncomfortable hearing. I thought that was a super compromise idea and Mike gave it serious consideration before turning the idea down. Again, that shows that his heart is in the right place even if his actions thus far are not acceptable.
Mike has a real problem with his readers. They really do get angry when I post what the research says and what the historical data says. He really will lose readers if he permits honest posting at his site. Most bloggers don’t want to lose readers. So he is between a rock and a hard place. People need to know that to know the full story.
We need to work these things out as a society. We made a mistake as a society in thinking for a time that Buy-and-Hold could work. Now we have filled up millions of people’s heads with dangerous ideas. We need to make big changes in what we tell people about stock investing. But it doesn’t help if we tell the story in an unbalanced or unfair way.
Mike is ducking the problem by banning honest posting. That’s nowheresville. But, if he were to agree to work with us to bring about a solution that benefits every single person involved, I don’t think we could find a better person to be a middle-man between the two “sides.” Everybody likes and respects Mike. He obviously wants to do the right thing. He is clearly a Buy-and-Holder. But he is a fair-minded one. He appreciates the other point of view. So I have hopes that we may be able to lay the groundwork for a resolution of all our troubles at this year’s conference.
Anyway, that’s the story, as I see it. Todd is 100 percent clean, he has been heroic. Mike has made some bad decisions but very much wants to play a positive role. I don’t think it would be at all a bad idea if some of the other responsible people dropped him a line letting him know that we all are looking for a fix to this mess and that we all would appreciate it greatly if he would help us put the Goon Era behind us.
We are not Goons and we do not permit Goons to post at our boards and blogs. That’s our community norm. Now we need to stop just talking up the community norm and start also LIVING it on a daily basis.
I wish you all good things, Diversified. Please take good care, my long-time Goon friend.
Rob
I don’t think it would be at all a bad idea if some of the other responsible people dropped him a line letting him know that we all are looking for a fix to this mess and that we all would appreciate it greatly if he would help us put the Goon Era behind us.
I will certainly let him know that you have been lying about him on your blog.
Why am I not surprised to hear you say such a thing, Evidence?
In any event, I will continue to post honestly on the SWR matter as well as to encourage all my fellow community members to do the same.
And I of course look forward to the presentation I will be giving with Todd and Mike. I hope it will be possible to get a group at the Financial Bloggers Conference to work toward getting the prison sentences for the Lindauerheads and the Greaney Goons started so that we can all be free of this smelly garbage once and for all.
Please take care, Evidence.
Rob
What Mike Piper actually said
http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1339790147
“Yes, Rob and I spoke at the Financial Blogger Conference last October.
Yes, I said that if he ever wanted a chance to be allowed onto this forum, a good place to start would be to take down his pages disparaging Taylor and Mel.
No, I did not say I was embarrassed by Mel.
No, I did not say Mel was a jerk.
No, I did not say I was afraid of Mel.
In my personal experiences with Mel, he’s been exceedingly helpful and friendly, so I would have no reason to make the above statements about him.
I do not intend to check back on this thread or forum, so please understand that if I’m quoted again and do not object, it’s not necessarily because the quote is accurate. “
Those words did not appear with Mike Piper’s name on them, Evidence. As you well know, those words are the words that one of the Greaney Goons SAID Mike Piper said.
Given the track record of the Greaney Goons, I think it would be fair to say that the odds that Mike Piper actually wrote those words are less than 1 in 20.
You are engaging in defamation of the man. And a record is being kept of your posts here.
Rob
Mike Piper continues to post at bogleheads.
He does not post here.
He does not permit you to comment at his site.
He does not permit you to guest blog at his site.
The evidence suggests that he has no problem with Mel and suggests that he does have a problem with you.
Your four statements are all accurate, Evidence.
Your conclusion is not even a tiny bit justified by those four accurate statements.
Mike Piper is a Buy-and-Holder. Bogleheads is dominanted by Buy-and-Holders. Of course he posts there. I am the leading critic of Buy-and-Hold alive on Planet Earth. Mike is certainly warmly invited to post here. But I don’t think it is so terribly hard to understand why he elects not to. He has banned me from his site. But we know that that is not because he felt good about doing so. I engaged in EXTENSIVE e-mail communications with Mike re the banning. He HATED the idea. His readers (Buy-and-Holders!) demanded it.
What is it that you do not get about this?
Mike HATES Mel’s behavior. In one of our discussions, he said that he feels that death threats HAVE NO PLACE in discussions of stock investing strategies. Does that sound like a Mel Lindauer fan to you?
It’s not too hard to figure out why Mike does not want people to know that he thinks Mel is a jerk. What do you think Mel is going to do to him and his blog if he speaks openly about this matter? It would be a pretty good guess that Mike Piper will be subject to the same “treatment” as Wade Pfau, no?
The intimidation tactics will continue until a group of responsible people get together and see to it that those who have posted in “defense” of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney are put in prison cells. Animals belong in cages, no?
Then we all get about the business of rebuilding our broken economy.
The Buy-and-Holders will be part of that great national debate. They won’t be posting in fear anymore. They will be saying what they sincerely believe. They will be adding to the discussions rather than humiliating themselves by their subservience to the lowest amongst us.
You won’t be there, Evidence. I have a funny hunch that there won’t be too many who will miss you.
We will all wish you the best. But we will get along just fine without the benefit of any further “contributions” from you.
Rob
“Mike HATES Mel’s behavior. ”
Mike links to articles written by Mel (not much hate being shown there)
http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/investing-blog-roundup-ramping-up-retirement-investing/
Yes.
And Wade Pfau does similar things.
It doesn’t follow that either Mike or Wade like the idea of being required to post dishonestly in order to get the payoffs that come with being part of “The Club.”
If human beings don’t like the idea of being able to preserve their personal integrity when posting to investing boards and blogs, why is it that EVERY board and blog has published rules protecting us all from the tactics that have been employed by Lindauer and Greaney to keep the errors in the Old School SWR studies covered up for ten years now?
People today TOLERATE the death threats and other intimidation tactics in the way that blacks tolerated not drinking from the same water fountains as whites for many years. There comes a time when people won’t tolerate this kind of garbage anymore, Evidence. I think it will be fair to say that the next price crash will put us in the Second Great Depression and that “Buy-and-Hold” will then be a dirty phrase on the lips of every American. How well do you think you Goons will fare then?
Please mark me down as Opposed to the Campaign of Terror.
Please tell everyone on the internet you know. I would consider it a big favor if you could help me get the word out.
Rob
Please mark me down as Opposed to the Campaign of Terror.
It would be more accurate to mark you down as the creator and perpetrator of the Campaign of Terror.
Right.
It’s not my screen-name that appears on the May 13, 2002, post, Evidence.
Good point.
Rob