Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:
Rob,
Not considering a variable in a study is not fraud and doesn’t require an immediate or any update.
If I publish a study showing a link between smoking and cancer but fail to account for family history it may be a less than perfect study but I am in no way required to amend that study.
You are welcome to post your own finding and highlight how the current study is insufficient. It seems like you have already done this Rob and now people are free to review everything available. That is how it works old studies aren’t updated new research is done on top of previous research and if it hold enough merit it just usurps the old as the gold standard. Maybe people aren’t willing to accept they need to consider Rob Bennett’s way of valuing stock and only Rob’s valuation when deciding on a safe withdrawal rate. Not including this very esoteric valuation metric from an internet troll into your study is not fraud.
If Greaney didn’t think it was fraud to lie about the numbers that people use to plan their retirements, he never would have threatened to kill my wife and children if I didn’t agree to stop reporting the accurate numbers. Give me a friggin’ break.
And if Bogle didn’t think it was fraud to continue telling people that the peer-reviewed research supports Buy-and-Hold 33 years after the research that once was thought to do that was discredited, he never would have gotten involved in the threats to get Academic Researcher Wade Pfau fired from his job unless he agreed to stop publishing honest research. Again, give me a friggin’ break.
I’m telling, Anonymous.
That’s the bottom line.
I’m telling the millions of people who will see a large portion of their retirement money disappear following the next price crash who did it to them. And I am going to help them organize and file lawsuits and get prosecutors to file criminal cases and all the rest.
That’s how our system works. There are always going to be some low-lifes who are going to be tempted to exploit human weaknesses for their personal profit. Fortunately, we were smart enough as a society to enact laws making financial fraud a felony. The announcement of your prison sentence will go viral. From that day forward, the rest of us will be learning about the first true research-based strategy, the strategy that lets us all reduce the risk of stock investing by 70 percent.
If you don’t think it is fraud to lie about the numbers that people use to plan their retirements, tell it to the jury, my old friend. It’s your jury that holds your fate in their hands. It’s your jury that you need to convince.
I want nothing to do with felonies and juries and prison sentences. It is my intent to continue to post honestly re safe withdrawal rates and scores of other critically important investment-related topics.
We’ll meet on the other side of the river following the next price crash and compare notes as to who has fell and as to who has been left behind. Fair enough, my long-time abusive posting friend?
Rob
Anonymous says
If Greaney didn’t think…If Bogle didn’t think…
OK, but what do you think about this poster’s point? It’s a very specific one.
Rob says
I think the poster is making excuses for engaging in financial fraud, Anonymous. Obviously.
A reporter for New York magazine visited Bernie Madoff in prison and asked him why he engaged in financial fraud. Madoff said that he was trying to “help people.”
Yeah, sure he was. Ask his victims how much they appreciate all his “help.”
Most criminals are not psychopaths. Anyone who is not a psychopath needs to rationalize his bad actions. Madoff convinced himself on one level of consciousness that he was “helping” people by creating fake transaction statements. He was still sent to prison. Creating fake transaction statements shows bad intent. That gets you sent to prison.
Had he made the fake transaction statement as the result of some sort of accident, he could have gotten off. But there was no evidence of an accident in his case. He created those fake statements intentionally, whether he first told himself that he was doing it to help people or not.
I believe Madoff when he tells us that he did what he did only after persuading himself that he was somehow “helping” people. But I think it was right that he was sent to prison. We cannot let people off just because they rationalize their crimes. If we do, our laws become a joke.
So it is with the Buy-and-Holders.
Jack Bogle has helped millions of people. He is a hero to the middle class. I rank him as the second most important investing analyst in history (second only to Robert Shiller). I am the biggest Jack Bogle fan on Planet Earth.
My strong positive feelings for the man do not change the fact that he has committed the crime of financial fraud by failing to act re the Lindauerheads and the Greaney Goons.
I am highly confident that Bogle has rationalized the crime. He tells himself that “Buy-and-Hold is good enough,” which is a claim that one of you Goons put forward here just a few days ago. If you gave him a lie detector test and asked him “Do you think Buy-and-Hold is good enough?” I think he could say “yes” and pass the test. Bogle believes in Buy-and-Hold just as Madoff believed in the Madoff fund. That’s not enough to get him off the hook for financial fraud.
If Bogle spoke up about the Linduaerheads and the Greaney Goons and then it was discovered years later that Buy-and-Hold doesn’t work, I would find him “Not Guilty” if I served on his jury. In that case, I would say that he was suffering from cognitive dissonance and that he should get off. That’s not the situation that applies in reality.
Bogle really is suffering from cognitive dissonance. I can make a very strong case that that is so. I certainly believe that it is so. And I believe that that is so of you Goons too. But I don’t believe that we can let everyone who suffers from cognitive dissonance off when they commit objective cases of financial fraud. I think that there have to be lines that we do not permit people to cross. Putting forward death threats to stop people from learning what the peer-reviewed research says is one of those lines. Failing to speak up about such death threats when you see them is another one of those lines.
I am not saying that Bogle will end up in prison. I believe that he has taken on a risk that he will end up in prison. But I believe that he will be given some sort of immunity. Richard Nixon committed felonies when he was in a position of great responsibility. He did not go to prison. He was given a pardon. My guess is that something similar will happen in Bogle’s case.
But it is still a horrible reality that Bogle’s reputation is being dragged through the mud as Nixon’s once was. It’s not something that I ever expected to see or hoped to see. It is a horrifying reality. I intend to do everything in my power to resurrect Bogle’s good reputation. I believe that his contributions are very real and very important.
Anyway, the poster is making excuses for financial fraud. It’s a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible mistake. My aim is to have thousands of posts in the record showing that I have made every effort imaginable to separate myself from this massive act of financial fraud in every way possible. I’ve worked this one hard. That will give me added credibility to help out my Buy-and-Hold friends following the next price crash. So I see it as a win/win/win/win/win.
I hope that helps a bit, Anonymous.
My best and warmest wishes to you and yours.
Rob
Question says
While I don’t share your opinions on a 65% crash, let’s say it actually happens. How does the world actually come to a conclusion that the cause was buy and hold and/ or faulty SWR calculations? How does the world come to the conclusion that VII is the solution? What is the actual mechanism? What specifically points out that Rob Bennett is the only one right about these things? Perhaps you can describe the chain of events and people involved.
Rob says
No one is ever going to say that Rob Bennett is the only one right about these things because Rob Bennett is not the only one who is right about these things. I learned that the Old School safe-withdrawal-rate studies get the numbers wrong by reading Bogle’s book. So people will be saying that both Bogle and me were right. I obviously learned important things from Shiller and Bernstein and Russell and Arnott and Pfau and thousands of my fellow community members. People will be saying that all of those people were right too.
The world will come to conclusions re these things by talking about them. That’s how we have come to conclusions re every subject re which we have ever come to conclusions. What other “mechanisms” could there be?
There was a time when Buy-and-Hold looked to be legitimate. Then research was published in 1981 showing that there is zero chance that a Buy-and-Hold strategy could ever work for even a single long-term investor. Then the Buy-and-Hold Mafia engaged in criminal acts of intimidation and deception to block our entire society from learning about the mistake they made. That led to an economic crisis. Following the next price crash, enough of us will work up the courage to bring this massive act of financial fraud to an end. Then everything is groovy.
Permitting honest discussion is the “mechanism” already in use in our system of government for the investigation of every question other than those in the investing realm. It is because of an imbalance of power between the Wall Street Con Men and the millions of middle-class investors who need access to honest and accurate reports re what the last 34 years of peer-reviewed research says that the usual “mechanisms’ do not apply in this field. Once enough of us work up the courage to stand up to the Wall Street Con Men and their Internet Goon Squads, we can enforce the laws of the United States, which were adopted to protect us from this kind of con.
I hope that helps, Question.
Rob
Followup Question says
“No one is ever going to say that Rob Bennett is the only one right about these things because Rob Bennett is not the only one who is right about these things.”
Having established that, why is Rob Bennett going to be awarded $500 million, while Bogle, Shiller, Russell, Arnott, Pfau, et al are headed to prison.
Question says
You may not have fully understood my question. Since active trading is the most common practice and buy and hold is much less common, how is it determined and who determines buy and hold was the cause? How then is it concluded that VII is the solution? How does the path lead to your doorstep?
Rob says
I will be receiving awards in the litigation I will be bringing against those who have posted in “defense” of Mel Lindauer and John Geaney and Jack Bogle. The $500 million figure is a settlement amount that I have indicated I would be willing to accept so long as that amount is paid prior to the onset of the next price crash. Others who have cases to bring may of course bring them.
It is the millions of middle-class investors whose lives are in the process of being destroyed who will determine who goes to prison. Madoff went to prison only after his fund collapsed. I presume that it will be the same with the Buy-and-Hold Con. After the next crash, millions of middle-class investors whose lives have been destroyed by this massive act of financial fraud will demand that prosecutors bring criminal actions against those who have put up posts in “defense” of Mel Linduaer or John Greaney or Jack Bogle. Juries will decide the lengths of the prison sentences, not me.
My intent is to put forward some words aimed at getting the prison sentences reduced a bit. I cannot promise results and I doubt that my words will have much influence if you Goons do not come clean prior to the onset of the next price crash. But you have my pledge that I will do what I can.
I won’t be going to prison because I have never once advanced a post that in any way, shape or form “defended” this massive act of financial fraud. I have been pretty darn careful re that one, Follow. Full truth be told, I have never given two seconds of consideration to the idea of doing so. Not this boy. I love my country. I HATE what this massive act of financial fraud has done to it.
Bogle has committed financial fraud but I personally doubt that he will be sent to prison. He also built the foundation on which the Valuation-Informed Indexing Model was built.
Shiller is the godfather of Valuation-Informed Indexing. Yes, he has been too afraid of what the Buy-and-Hold Mafia would do to him to post with full honesty. But I would be AMAZED and STUNNED if Shiller went to prison.
Arnott ain’t going to prison. He has been an absolute stud for the goods guys. If there is anyone NOT going to prison re this massive act of financial fraud, I would put Arnott at the top of that list (along with me!).
Russell is obviously not going to prison. Russell will be a national hero when this all comes out. I couldn’t have done one-tenth of the good work that I have done without Russell’s kind and generous efforts.
I doubt that Pfau will go to prison. It’s possible. He has betrayed himself, his family, his profession and his country. The other side of the story is that Pfau was the first person with enough courage to ask the authors of the Trinity study to correct the errors in their SWR study and is the co-author of the most important piece of peer-reviewed research published in this field in the past 30 years. Wade will turn quickly following the next crash and win people over to his side with his good efforts.
I hope that helps, FollowUp.
Rob
Rob says
You may not have fully understood my question. Since active trading is the most common practice and buy and hold is much less common, how is it determined and who determines buy and hold was the cause? How then is it concluded that VII is the solution? How does the path lead to your doorstep?
Active trading obviously has nothing to do with what we are talking about, as you well know, Question. Imagine a Goon engaging in an obvious deception!
The relentless promotion of Buy-and-Hold “idea” that there might be some magical, mystical planet on which price discipline is not 100 percent required for everyone investing in stocks was the primary cause of the economic crisis. We will as a society “determine” that because you Goons will be sent off to prison and the thousands of us who expressed a desire to be able to hold honest discussions will have them. Who’d a thunk it?
It won’t be too hard for the entire nation to determine that Valuation-Informed Indexing is the first true research-based investing strategy. VII is Buy-and-Hold with the Get Rich Quick element removed. All aspects of Buy-and-Hold other than the Get Rich Quick element are already supported by years of peer-reviewed research. Once honest posting is permitted and you Goons are sent to prison, Buy-and-Hold will be an obscene phrase. I have a funny feeling that not too many middle-class investors are going to want to follow an investing strategy universally viewed as an obscenity.
Following the laws of the United States to expose a massive act of financial fraud — Is that a great “mechanism” or what?
The path leading to my doorstep is the 13 years of materials housed at this site that expose the massive con. Using the internet for positive and constructive and life-affirming purposes — What will they think of next?
Hang in there, my long-time Goon friend. It gets better. A LOT better.
Rob
Question says
I still don’t think you are understanding me. Buy and hold is not the dominate strategy employed. Active trading is. What leads the public to conclude that the smaller segment of investing is at fault when it is not the largest segment of implemented strategies? What is the causal link?
Rob says
It is the Buy-and-Holders who have claimed that there is some mystical, magical research showing that there is no need for all investors to exercise price discipline (that is, to engage in long-term timing). Active traders did not do that. Buy-and-Holders did that.
And every death threat was put forward by a Buy-and-Holder. And every demand for an unjustified board banning was put forward by a Buy-and-Holder. And all the tens of thousands of acts of defamation were put forward by Buy-and-Holders. And every threat to get an academic researcher fired from his job was put forward by a Buy-and-Holder.
Active traders have no dog in this fight. The Buy-and-Holders made a mistake and they are ashamed of it and they don’t want the millions of middle-class investors who need to know about it to learn about it. That’s the deal.
The marketing campaign of the Buy-and-Holders is rooted in a claim that Buy-and-Hold is supported by the peer-reviewed research and that has not been so for 34 years now. It’s a con. It didn’t start out as a con. But that’s what it became when Bogle elected in 1981 not to acknowledge his mistake but to cover it up.
Greaney was really just copying Bogle’s behavior. Greaney figured that if a powerful guy like Bogle was committing financial fraud, so could he — the powerful guy would come to his aid in an effort to protect himself. It should work the other way around. When we saw that Greaney was committing fraud because he saw Bogle doing it first, we should have demanded that BOTH Greaney and Bogle come clean. The answer is not to have everyone sink to the bottom. The answer is to apply higher standards ACROSS THE BOARD. We all should want the financial fraud that has come to dominate this field in the Buy-and-Hold years to COME TO AN END.
My sincere take.
Rob
Question says
What specifically drives people to then conclude that buy and hold bears the responsibility?
Rob says
A mountain of evidence.
Given the mountain of evidence, you should be asking the opposite question: Why aren’t you in a prison cell today?
For the answer to that one, look at what happened to Bernie Madoff. He was the toast of the town until his investors lost their retirement money. They they wanted to string him up on a tree.
So it will go for the Buy-and-Holders. Until the price crash comes, people view your massive act of financial fraud as a big joke. After they have lost most of their retirement money, not so much would be my guess.
But I am not God. I have been wrong before and it could well be that it is happening again. If it were, I would probably be the last to know.
Fair enough?
Rob