A Rich Life

The Old Ideas on Saving & Investing Don't Work -- Here's What Does

Purcellville Police Warned of Possible SWAT-ing Attacks by Goon “Defenders” of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney

by

I have notified the Purcellville police that I may be the target of SWAT-ing attacks by the internet goons who have advanced posts at various investing discussion boards and blogs in “defense” of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney, the two individuals who have led the 10-year-long Campaign of Terror against the Retire Early and Indexing discussion board communities and the Personal Finance Blogosphere.

Wikipedia defines SWAT-ing (or Swatting) as “an attempt to trick an emergency service (such as a 9-1-1 dispatcher) into dispatching an emergency response team. The name is derived from SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics), one type of such team. Such action places law enforcement and citizens at risk and are criminal actions. In addition, it reduces law enforcement coverage and costs taxpayer money.” The Wikipedia entry explains that: “CNN interviewed Erick Erickson to discuss an incident in which he had been the victim of swatting. The caller to 911 claimed: ‘I just shot my wife, so…. I don’t think I could come down there…. She’s dead, now…. I’m looking at her…. I’m going to shoot someone else, soon.’ —911 caller. That incident prompted Sandy Adams to push for a Justice Department investigation.”

I am the person who discovered the errors in the Old School safe-withdrawal-rate studies (the studies do not contain an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins). I shared my discovery with my fellow community members at a Motley Fool discussion board on the morning of May 13, 2002. John Greaney, the author of one of the discredited studies, has for the past 10 years led a brutal Campaign of Terror against all board and blog communities that have shown an interest in discussing the errors in the Old School SWR studies. The effort was led at Indexing communities by Mel Lindauer, co-author of The Bogleheads Guide to Investing, who made a positive reference to the Greaney study in his book and who has posted in “defense” of Greaney and the Old School studies at the Bogleheads Forum discussion board.

When Academic Researcher Wade Pfau contacted the authors of the Trinity study (another discredited Old School SWR study) seeking a correction, the LIndauerheads and Greaney Goons threatened to send defamatory e-mails to his employer in an effort to get him fired. I have in recent months been reporting on my 16 months of e-mail correspondence with Wade, in which he made many references to the “hostile environment” he experienced when posting on the internet about his research findings showing that the Old School retirement studies get the numbers wildly wrong and about his fears that the Lindauerheads and Greaney Goons would be successful in their efforts to destroy his career if he did not agree to play ball with them.

Wade has announced that he will no longer be doing research on Valuation-Informed Indexing, the investing strategy that I developed as a result of the loss of confidence I experienced in Buy-and-Hold after seeing many Buy-and-Holders fail to speak up in strong terms in opposition to the Campaign of Terror (Wade’s research shows that Valuation-Informed Indexing has provided far higher returns than Buy-and-Hold at greatly diminished risk for the entire 140 years for which we have stock return data). He also announced that, while he still believes that the Old School studies get the retirement numbers wildly wrong, there is no need for them to be corrected. He has praised Greaney as the hero of the  10 years of discussions and has characterized me as “unethical” for insisting that the discredited retirement studies be corrected before they cause more failed retirements.

I have contacted the Purcellville Police re this matter previously — much of the history of my efforts to resolve the matter by contacting the appropriate authorities is described here. I have seen an escalation in the threats since I began reporting on Wade’s decision to capitulate to the demands of the Goons. On July 6, 2012, I received an e-mail containing the following text: “Coming.tanks 4 address and phone number.will help me find u.” One of the Goons recently started a thread at the site owned by Greaney setting forth this image in the thread-starter:

 

Greaney Site Gun Image

John Greaney’s argument for why there is no need to correct the errors in the Old School safe-withdrawal-rate studies

 

I have made public notice at earlier times that I expect to bring civil lawsuits for the recovery of damages to my internet writing business against the owners of web sites that permit Lindauer and/or Greaney “defenders” to post defamatory comments about me or about those who have posted in support of correction of the Old School studies or Valuation-Informed Indexing or in opposition to the Campaign of Terror against our board communities or who in some other way lend support to the efforts of Lindauer and Greaney to continue the ten-year cover-up of my discovery of the errors in the studies. I also expect to help the millions of middle-class investors who have suffered financial losses as a result of the 10-year cover-up to recover the financial damages they have suffered. And I of course will cooperate in any way I can at congressional hearings and in criminal proceedings against those who have posted in “defense” of Lindauer and Greaney.

I intend for this blog entry to put all concerned parties on notice that I would expect SWAT-ing actions to be considered in the criminal and civil and congressional proceedings that I expect will follow the next crash in the price of stocks.

Ed Rager, Mel Lindauer and Taylor Larimore to Rob Bennett: “You’ve Constantly Misquoted, Distorted, and Disrespected Jack Bogle and Bill Bernstein. Your latest Post “Jack Bogle’s Big Mistake” Was, in Our Opinion, the Final Straw. Jack and Bill Both Join Us at Our Private Events Because They Enjoy Meeting with Friendly, Like-Minded Diehards in a Relaxed and Secure Atmosphere….You Will Not Be Allowed to Attend.”

by

While I was looking through my old e-mails to recover the ones that I sent to the Morningstar site administrators and reported on in the last few blog entries, I came across the e-mails that I sent to sign up to attend the Vanguard Diehards Conference with John Bogle in 2007. I had intended to ask Bogle questions about the cover-up of the errors in the Old School safe-withdrawal-rate studies, which I had reported on at a Motley Fool discussion board on May 13, 2002, and which have not been publicly acknowledged by the “experts” in the investing advice field until recent months. I thought that these e-mails too were worth reporting on. I did not receive a response to the question I posed in the last e-mail.

Set forth below are the texts of three e-mails: (1) the e-mail that I sent to Ed Rager on February 17, 2007; (2) the response that I received from Ed on February 18, 2007; and (3) the reply that I sent on Feburary 19, 2007.

Ed:

This is Rob Bennett (“hocus” on the boards). I’d like to make my reservation to attend Diehards VI.

I live in the area. So I do not need a hotel reservation.

My personal information is:

[….]

Please let me know what I need to do to transfer the registration fee of
$189.

Thanks for all the work you did putting this together.

Rob

Hi Rob:
Our Diehards get-togethers are private social meetings of friends and like-minded souls who love, admire, and respect Jack Bogle and his teachings.  You’ve constantly misquoted, distorted, and disrespected Jack Bogle and Bill Bernstein.  Your latest post “Jack Bogle’s Big Mistake” was, in our opinion, the final straw.  Jack and Bill both join us at our private events because they enjoy meeting with friendly, like-minded Diehards in a relaxed and secure atmosphere.  We want them to continue to enjoy and attend our private social events.  Therefore, we regret to inform you that you will not be allowed to attend.
Ed, Taylor and Mel
<br>
Ed, Taylor and Mel:Boo, baby!These statements are of course absurd.Have you notified Jack Bogle of what you have done?

If you have notified him, would you please let me know his reaction?

Rob

Morningstar Site Administrator to Rob Bennett: “If the Post Where You Were Threatened Did Not Occur on the Morningstar Boards, Then Why Bring It Back to Life on the Morningstar Boards?….Consider This a Formal Warning.”

by

Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail that I sent to Morningstar.com site administrators on April 18, 2006, reporting on death threats advanced by John Greaney at an earlier time that were being used by Mel Lindauer, co-author of the book “The Bogleheads Guide to Investing” at that time to intimidate Vanguard Diehards community members into not posting honestly on the errors in the Old School safe-withdrawal-rate studies. Set forth below is the text of the response I received from Morningstar on April 18, 2006, followed by my reply to that response. I did not receive a response from Morningstar to the question I posed in that reply.

Hello Rob,

Thank you for writing.  Unfortunately we are not concerned with the goings-on in other forums outside of Morningstar and have no control over other forums.  If the post where you were threatened did not occur on the Morningstar boards, then why bring it back to life on the Morningstar boards?  As far as we can tell, this constitutes as a posting of misleading information.  Consider this a formal warning.

If you have any additional questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to reply to this email and I will be happy to further assist you.

Best Regards,
Matthew B
Morningstar Support

Matthew:

I certainly agree that the Greaney matter should not be brought to the Morningstar boards. The reality is that it has been brought up there by a number of posters. My post was an attempt to explain to my fellow community members the background as to why this was happening. I did this only after the matter had been injected into discussions held at Morningstar on numerous occasions.

I certainly am okay with the idea of not making further reference to the Greaney matter at the Morningstar boards.

Would it be helpful if I were to notify you on future occasions on which the Greaney matter is brought into the discussions at Morningstar by other posters?

Rob

Rob Bennett to the Morningstar.com Site Administrator: “A Poster Named ‘Galeno’ [This Was Greaney’s #1 Supporter on the Board] Put Forward Four Consecutive Posts Rejecting Out of Hand the Idea of Substantive Discussion and Putting Forward Threats of Physical Violence Against Me. One Was a Threat to Come to My House with a Baseball Bat to Kill My Wife and Children”

by

Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail that I sent to the Morningstar.com site administrator on April 18, 2006, relating to abusive posting by Mel Linduaer (co-author of the book “The Bogleheads Guide to Investing”). I sent a follow-up e-mail later that day. I will report tomorrow on the response that I received from Morningstar.

Mstar Casey:

This is my second response to your e-mail. The earlier response supplied the background facts. This post provides links.

Here is a link to a post put forward by Greaney (he posts as “Intercst.”):

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17762586&sort=postdate

Mark33 asked that the personal attacks stop and that a substantive discussion be permitted. A poster named “Galeno” (this was Greaney’s #1 supporter on the board) put forward four consecutive posts rejecting out of hand the idea of substantive discussion and putting forward threats of physical violence against me. One of these was a threat to come to my house with a baseball bat to kill my wife and children.

The posts making the threats were deleted, but there is a quote to one of the threats in the post linked above. The section quoted reads: ” No way! I, for one, am against any and all “substantive” discussions with or about brickhead (aka hocus). I want Jihad! I say let loose the dogs of personal attack. The nastier the better as far as I’m concerned.” Greaney put forward the post linked above, endorsing the threats.

Here is a link to a post in which Greaney reports that he has received an e-mail from Galeno saying that he was suspended from the board for putting up the posts that made the threats of violence. I did not report the threats. Some other community member obviously did so.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17765010&sort=postdate

Greaney speaks in opposition to the suspension, implicitly endorsing the threats. This endorsement did far more harm to the board than did the actual threats, as Greaney was founder of the board and respected by a number of community members. A large number of our best posters left in the following months.

This is a link to a post by Prometheuss, another leading Greaney supporter. The post comments on a death threat put forward by Galeno and comments negatively on the fact that the death threat post was removed.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=18207722&sort=postdate

Prometheuss: “My comment on galeno’s post was pulled for ‘incivility’. First, I want to apologize to galeno if he took offense at my ‘rude or discourteous’ post. Saying, “You doctors should stick to your drugs and leave bullets to soldiers like me” was rude and demonstrated a lack of courtesy to galeno on my part. Anyway, I will try to cover the important points I was trying to make in a non-offensive way here. Most folks think they know a lot about guns from watching movies or TV, but things are a lot different in the real world….”

Please let me know if you have further question re this matter or need further examples of the nature of the problem that I was making reference to in the post that I put to the Morningstar board.

Rob

Rob Bennett to Morningstar Site Administrator: “The Greaney Supporters Openly Discuss Tactics for Disrupting Morningstar Threads….They Have Taken Comfort in the Posts by Mel [Lindauer]”

by

Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail that I received from a Morningstar site administrator on April 17, 2006. The e-mail read: “Please direct us to the specific posting where you were threatened with violence by another Morningstar poster. ” Set forth below is my response, which was sent the following day. I will provide the text of my follow-up e-mail in tomorrow’s blog.

MStar Casey:

I’ve never been threatened by any Morningstar poster.

I have been threatened with violence by a poster from another board. This poster has made numerous threats against posters who in his view “cross” him by questioning his views on investing.

There are a group of posters at another board who support this individual. Several of them have signed up at Morningstar since I began posting there and have put forward disruptive posts as their attempt at harassment.

There have been several posts in which Mel and a number of others at Morningstar have posted links to the web site and the discussion board of the poster who threatened me. His name is John Greaney and he is the owner of the RetireEarlyHomePage.com web site. There is a discussion-board site connected with that web site at which he has several boards devoted solely to the topic of ridiculing me and any of the hundreds of posters who at earlier times supported me on a number of Retire Early boards at which I have posted. The obvious purpose is to intimidate posters who post at these boards not to offer support for me or to disagree with his views.

The posters at Greaney’s board have interpreted Mel’s linking to Greaney’s site and discussion board as support for Greaney’s tactics. I have seen the tactics used by Greaney supporters destroy a number of boards. These are not your ordinary discussion-board tactics.

The post that I put to the Morningstar board was in response to a post in which a poster complained about posters following me around from thread to thread and harassing me. My post was an attempt to explain the background. The Greaney supporters openly discuss tactics for disrupting Morningstar threads (and threads at other boards at which issues relating in some way to what the historical data says re long-term stock returns). They have taken comfort in the posts by Mel and a few others to the Greaney web site and the Greaney discussion board.

The root issue is that Greaney got an important number wrong in a study of safe withdrawal rates that he posted to his web site. There is no reasonable dispute about the fact that he got the number wrong. This has been confirmed by numerous experts, including William Bernstein and Scott Burns. It has also been confirmed by extensive examinations of the historical data on which the study is based. Greaney does not want to acknowledge getting the number wrong, and he understands that permitting honest posting on the safe withdrawal rate topic makes him look bad for failing to acknowledge the error. Honest posting at Morningstar embarrasses him because there are a good number of posters who participate at the various Retire Early boards who also participate at the Morningstar board.

It may take me an hour or two to find the post at Motley Fool at which the threats of physical violence were made against me. I will provide links in a follow-up e-mail. There were numerous threats made (the threats and the fallout from them caused just about all effective on-topic posters to leave the board). The posts in which the threats were made were deleted from the board, but there were several cases in which the threats were quoted in later posts. The last time I checked, the posts quoting the threats were still at the board. I will get back with links in a little bit.

Rob

Morningstar Site Administrator: “Please Direct Us to the Specific Posting Where You Were Threatened with Violence by Another Morningstar Poster”

by

One of my reports on my e-mail correspondence with Academic Researcher Wade Pfau described an e-mail to Wade in which I stated: “I put up a post describing Greaney’s tactics and Lindauer’s role of linking to Greaney’s board each time a new poster dared to post honestly.” One of the Goons asked for a link to the post. I provided the link in the comments section of that blog entry. 

The post appeared in a thread at the Morningstar.com site at which long-time community members were asking why so many abusive posters had recently begun participating in the discussions. Here are the words of my post:

Look at 49451 and see someone with 2 morningstar posts that has nothing to add except a wise crack.

For those not playing close enough attention to understand what is going on here, I will provide a brief bit of background.

There is an individual who got an important number wrong in a study that he published on the internet. He has elected not to acknowledge the error. Because he has his own web site, he has a number of supporters who are willing to do just about anything to block any discussion board on the face of the internet from engaging in honest and informed and reasoned discussions of the topic addressed in the study in which he got the number wrong.

I was aware from my own research that this individual got the number wrong. I reported this to a board at which I posted, and that post generated the most exciting discussions that board had ever witnessed. My position was vindicated beyond any reasonable doubt when we discovered what Bill Bernstein says about the subject matter of the study in his book “The Four Pillars of Investing.”

I put up a post entitled “What Bernstein Says” that reported on Bernstein’s position. The response from the individual who got the number wrong was to threaten to send one of his goons to my house with a baseball bat to kill my wife and kids. Motley Fool banned me because their lawyers are concerned that some crazy supporter of this individual may actually take action on this insane threat and that they could be held liable. The site administrator has said that he would love to have me back on the board (Motley Fool co-founder Tom Gardner wrote one of the blurbs that appear on the back cover of my book) if the individual would “permit” it.

This development caused every effective on-topic poster at that board to leave the board within a matter of months. There is no longer any on-topic posting worth taking note of at that board.

Those interested in the subject matter of that board went on to form four other boards at which they hoped to be able to engage in honest and informed and reasoned posting on the subject matter of the board. As each became successful, the individual sent his goons in to destroy every one of them.

Mel has linked to this individual’s web site on several occasions. The individual’s supporters have interpreted this as an endorsement of this individual’s tactics for “dealing with” the statements put forward by Bernstein and a host of others on what the historical data says re how valuations affect long-term stock returns (a topic closely related to the topic addressed in the study in which the individual got the number wrong).

Rob

In the comments section of the earlier report, one of the Goons asked to see the correspondence that I engaged in with the Morningstar.com site administrator. Set forth below is the text of the first e-mail that I received from Morningstar. I will post the text of my response tomorrow.

hocus,

Please direct us to the specific posting where you were threatened with violence by another Morningstar poster.  In Thread #49557, post 9, you quote a threat from another poster.  Please direct us to that thread and post.

Thanks,

Mstar Casey

 

Rob Bennett to Academic Researcher Wade Pfau: “The Issue of Your Job Search Is NOT Entirely Private. It Goes to Motive… It Is of the Utmost Importance That We Make Clear to People WHY So Many Experts Fail to Speak Out Against Buy-and-Hold 30 Years After the Academic Research Showed That There Is Zero Chance That It Will Work for Any Long-Term Investor”

by

Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail sent to me by Academic Researcher Wade Pfau on April 7, 2012. I sent a response within 20 minutes. The text is set forth below.

Wade:

I’m happy to use the entire text of the first e-mail, Wade.

Is it your preference that I run the entire text of your other e-mails?

Rob

Wade responded within 25 minutes. He said: “My preference is that you do not write about any of my emails!” He then identified the e-mail that he wanted me to run in full text. He said: “Beyond that email, I feel that my emails to you are meant to be private, and I don’t want them posted publicly. As long as you posted the entire above email first, please then just summarize any other emails I sent you without using quotes or excerpts. I wrote the first email under the assumption that you would post it publicly, but my other emails to you were written under the assumption they would be kept private. Also, please do not mention that I am looking for a job in the United States, as this is something I do not want my university to know. Some of these matters are very private!”

I responded the next day. The text of my response is set forth below.

Wade:

There obviously would be no good purpose served in reporting on matters that are entirely private.

The issue of your job search is NOT entirely private. It goes to motive. Most people have common sense and so most people understand that the price they pay for stocks must affect the value proposition they obtain from them. I have asked people why the general rule does not apply in the case of stocks. The answer I get is that “the experts say that is so and I presume that they know what they are talking about.” So it is of the utmost importance that we make clear to people WHY so many experts fail to speak out against Buy-and-Hold 30 years after the academic research showed that there is zero chance that it would work for any long-term investor.

The obvious (to those who have watched The Great SWR Debate) explanation is that the experts are AFRAID to express their honest views in public. It is  certainly not only you. You are in very good company. Bogle is afraid to speak in complete honesty. Bernstein is afraid to speak in complete honesty. Tressider is afraid to speak in complete honesty. Burns is afraid to speak in complete honesty. And on and on and on. (These are all great people who have provided many powerful insights — that should go without saying but I don’t think it hurts to say it often given the circumstances.)

This is the problem that has to be overcome. When this one is overcome, all our problems are over. We will not all be in agreement, nor should we be. But at that point all this ugliness will be behind us. We won’t be associated  with people who engage in death threats and defamation and board bannings and all this sort of thing. We will be free to do the work we all want to do and to feel good ourselves while doing it.

So THAT sort of thing I very much need to report on. That’s the thing no one else is doing. And it is because no one else is doing this important work that we are in an economic crisis today.

I offer this preface so that you understand where I am coming from. There is ZERO desire here to do anything to cause you any discomfort. I want to see you win the Nobel Prize. That will be one of the happiest days of my life. It is not going to happen until we get to a point where we are all posting in complete honesty and moving things forward at a good pace. I didn’t ask for the job of doing this important work. I was volunteered. I obviously have never been offered any other options. So I obviously just have to do what I have to do, even when it pains me to see that the situation as a whole has caused some pain for people whom I think of as good friends and good people.

I think it is probably possible to avoid mentioning your interest in a job in the United States. I can’t make a commitment at this moment because I haven’t given much thought yet to how these articles would be put together. But my first thought is that it would be okay for me to say something like “Wade mentioned a private matter that caused him to not want the articles to appear at this time.” I don’t at the moment see why people would need to know more than that. [Please see the note at the bottom of this blog entry re Wade’s blog post to understand why I ultimately decided that it was necessary to include Wade’s words re the job in the United States to tell this story in a complete manner.]

That’s not the case with the earlier threats by the Goons to get you fired from your job in Japan. Those threats appear to have played a big role in your move to the dark side. Those threats are already public. The Goons posted them at Greaney’s board for all the world to see. So that stuff is already public and serves as a powerful demonstration of the the power of the Goons to block the public’s ability to learn about very important matters.

One of my jobs is to bring lawsuits against the Goons and those who have permitted them to post at their sites and those who have failed to speak up when they posted at sites at which they post and thereby have lent credibility to the Goons. I think it would help to diminish people’s anger for us to see that there are prison sentences served by those who have posted in “defense” of the Goons on more than a small number of occasions.

A showing that the Goons made threats to get a respected researcher fired from his job for the “crime” of speaking honestly about a matter of great public policy significance and that the researcher did indeed feel intimidated by this threat is PRECISELY the thing we need to get before people to get the major political blogs writing about this story. I believe that this story is going to break as a political story rather than as an investing story because most of the owners of the investing blogs are too compromised by their desire to be on good terms with the hot shots in this field.

I am not going through all this to further inflame you. That’s the last thing in the world I want to do. I am going through all this in an effort to help you better understand how you have managed to get yourself entangled in some very, very dangerous and foul stuff. My personal belief is that your worry about the U.S. job is trivial compared to what is coming down the road. After the next crash, people are going to be very, very angry about what has been done to them and will be looking for people to hang from a tree. Anyone who has put forward words in “defense” of the Goons has set himself up for a world of pain at that time, in my assessment. I pray that my friends will soon catch on to this reality and cease engaging in further acts of self-destruction, Anyway, the purpose here is to help you understand the realities. If you are not capable of appreciating them today, I hope that perhaps you will reread this e-mail at some later date when you are in circumstances that help you come to a better appreciation of what is going on here.

I love you, man. I believe that my appreciation of your research is greater than your own (because I am in circumstances which permit me to see implications that follow from it that you are not able to let into your consciousness today). My hope and belief is that there will be a day when we are both on the other side of the Big Black Mountain of hate and anger and shame and guilt that separates us today and have a beer together and laugh together at the craziness that for a time caused us to think there was some significant difference in our self interests. I don’t think there is. I think we are very much on the same side, regardless of how things may appear to look on the surface..

If you have any further concerns or questions re what I will write  or what I have written, please always feel free to drop me a note. My aim is be FAIR both to my readers and to those I write about. I work that side of things very, very hard. I think about it and think about it and think about it. I lose sleep over it. So don’t ever think that I dismiss any request you make casually. Never do I do that. I obviously cannot promise to go along with every request. There are millions of people today who have lost jobs because of all this Buy-and-Hold garbage and I obviously need to worry about the career prospects of those people too. But I care about you and I will always remain open to spinning things in your favor to the extent that it is possible for me to do that in good conscience.

Hang in there. It is my strong sense that things are in the process of getting better. The Goons are feeling more and more desperate every day. Perhaps there will come a time in the not too distant future when all the ugly part of this will be behind us and we will have only the fun, fulfilling parts of the project to work together on. Let us pray!

Rob

This e-mail was my last communication with Wade.

Wade wrote a blog entry at his site making defamatory comments about me (while also making a number of legitimate points) on May 16, 2012:

http://arichlife.passionsaving.com/2012/05/17/wade-pfau-bennett-desperately-wants-someone-besides-him-to-say-that-the-trinity-study-needs-to-be-corrected-but-ive-explained-that-this-isnt-how-research-works/

He deleted the comment that I posted to that blog entry. I checked his site a few weeks later to see that he had deleted comments that I made to other blog entries at his site.

Academic Researcher Wade Pfau: “The Role of Valuations in Affecting Safe Withdrawal Rates Will Definitely Find Its Way Into the Retirement Management Analyst Curriculum…. As I Am in the Early Stages of Hoping to Return to a Job in the United States, I Do Request That You Tone Down a Bit Whatever You Will Be Writing About Me. I Am Just Concerned About What Potential Employers May See When They Google My Name.”

by

Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail that I sent to Academic Researcher Wade Pfau on April 6, 2012. Wade responded a few hours later.

He said: “Thanks for sharing.  And I’ll keep plugging away at this. I’m not sure if you saw the news before, but I recently became the curriculum director for the Retirement Management Analyst designation, which focuses on the post retirement period. I was surprised to learn that CFPs don’t learn about post retirement, and their curriculum doesn’t even cover things like the Trinity study. The role of valuations in affecting SWRs will definitely find its way into the RMA curriculum.”

I responded the next day. The text of my response is set forth below.

Wade:

Please take good care. You’re the best.

I will send you an e-mail when I post the articles. My intent will
obviously not be to stir things up. I just feel better if you hear
news that you might consider unpleasant coming straight from
me rather than finding out about it through some other means.

Rob

Wade responded the same day. He said: “As I am in the early stages of hoping to return to a job in the United States, I do request that you tone down a bit whatever you will be writing about me. I’m just concerned about what potential employers may see when they google my name.”

He added: “About that first email I sent you in our exchange, please under no circumstances try to summarize or excerpt from it.  If you must use it, please include the entire message with nothing left out. I think that is only fair, because you will then have free reign for your rebuttal, and I won’t be around for further rebuttals to that.”

Rob Bennett to Academic Researcher Wade Pfau: “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.”

by

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

Academic Researcher Wade Pfau: “The Reason I Contacted Them [the Authors of the Trinity Study, an Old School Safe Withdrawal Rate Study) Was To List Some Concern I Had (Valuations, Fees, 30-Year Time-Period) About Whether the Results of Their Study Are Applicable for Recent Retirees. I DIdn’t Think the Trinity Study Is Helpful for Recent Retirees. Now, I Think Even More Strongly Than Before That the Trinity Study Is Not Helpful.”

by

Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail that I sent to Academic Researcher Wade Pfau on April 7, 2012. I sent a follow-up e-mail one hour later. The text is set forth below.

Wade:

I thought of a way to reduce the long response I sent a few minutes ago to something much shorter. So I thought I would pass that along. Then I promise to shut up.

You sent an e-mail to the Trinity authors asking them to correct their study.

Why?

Rob

Wade responded the same day. He said: “‘I’m glad to see you’ve pulled back your troops as it seemed you’ve been trying to start a war with me when we really have nothing to be fighting about.”

The e-mail continued: I” don’t have any problem with what you wrote in your last message, except that I have a slightly different view about the issue of correcting old studies. The way I think that is best done is to provide new research to replace the old research. On the issue of old school SWR studies, that is what I tried to do with my August 2011 Journal of Financial Planning article. Now it is just a matter of getting the word out about it, and the results from that article have been featured in the Wall Street Journal and SmartMoney. In June I’ve been invited to speak to a group of high level people from a bunch of different finance companies about this same topic. I’m doing what I can.”

Wade explained: “You asked about why I contacted the Trinity authors. I’m not sure why you even feel a need to ask. It seems like you’ve decided in your mind that I’m a Goon when I’ve not changed my outlook on this or any other relevant issue. The reason I contacted them was to list some concerns I had (valuations, fees, 30 year time period, etc) about whether the results of their study are applicable for recent retirees. I didn’t think the Trinity study is helpful for recent retirees. Now, I think even more strongly than before that the Trinity study is not helpful.

He concluded: “This is why I’m so confused about your attitude toward me since the Bill Bengen incident.”