Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

Here is a nice little blast from the past regarding Rob’s support:

Rob Bennett said: “Here is the URL for an article at my site at which 101 community members expressed a desire that honest posting on the Big Fail of Buy-and-Hold be permitted at all internet boards and blogs, Eugene.”

And, here is some of what those exact same 101 community members said subsequent to the quotes that Bennett cherry-picked and took out of context:

5/17/02 “Hocus’ quote… sounds good in theory, [but] Bernstein…points out the problem. While stock valuations are STILL very high historically, there are a number of reasons that they MIGHT stay that way. In the end, no one can predict with any real certainty what will happen over the remainder of our collective lives. Diversification and prudent (4%ish) withdrawals are really the best that you can do.

06/21/02 “There certainly are differences for those who attempt to ER with a small portfolio. Let’s compare two ERs who are both single with no kids. #1 has a portfolio of $2 million and #2 has $500k [like hocus did]. #1 has a lot more options than #2….

9/3/02 “…hocus himself comes across as confused, maybe even clueless, about various aspects of the SWR studies that I thought almost all of us had nailed down…”

11/22/02 “I disagree with the trash talking but I have some empathy for those who grow frustrated with hocus’ style…”

2/14/03 “Topics that don’t agree with the “wisdom” of the collective are great, but I wouldn’t expect people to embrace them with open arms until you show them that those ideas are better than the current ideas.”

4/14/03: ” Hocus has a THEORY, which by the way, no one knows what it’s based on, and it has never been laid out with any detail or precision. However, Intercst does NOT have a THEORY, Intercst says *if events in the future are no worse than in the past*, then X, Y, and Z…. That’s no THEORY, that’s having the facts on your side.”

07/26/03 “There are now several posters on the main FIRE board who are disgusted at your recent behaviour. They simply don’t post here because being moderated by you is distasteful to them, especially in light of your recent behaviour. You still seem to think that you are some kind of SWR God. It is laughable.Valuation has been discussed by any number of people, myself included. It is not a field pioneered by you, Rob. Your arrogance is remarkable.”

04/12/04 “I don’t understand how to change the SWR calcs to reflect your two risks. Is your hypothesis just this: “If I retire when the market valuation (S&P500 p/e ratio?) is below x, then my SWR can be y%; if the valuation is above x, then my SWR should be z%” ?”

11/14/04 ” >… good summary of the conundrum that is Hocus.”

11/14/04 “Mrs. Hocus! The poor woman, day after day, watching this guy tilting at windmills, flailing away at his computer keyboard, collecting publishers’ rejections slips (if indeed there are any to be collected). My heart goes out to her.”

12/18/04 “I quit posting on that site as a direct result of hocus being allowed back in “

2/4/05 ” I still find it hard to believe he made $15,000 from his soap box report. For some reason he sent me the darned thing to peruse and I could never get past the first paragraph or two… reasonably sure Hocus killed of Soapbox since no one would buy a second paper after getting suckered into buying his”

03/23/05 “No kidding beachbumz, we’re seeing the “Dumb Hocus” in this thread like I’ve not seen him before. “Smart Hocus” please come back, we miss you”

5/24/05 “Good job intercst! I’m ALSO completely confident that you will make more money off Hocomania than [he] will earn from his “so called” writing (read: manic-depressive word farts). In fact, you will make more PER MONTH than [Hocus] will make PER YEAR.”

3/18/06 “LOL! Man, Hocus could turn out the copy couldn’t he? I think people recc’ed his posts just because they were so long. Heck, later on after Hocus went nuts I’d give him a rec just for putting my name in bold in one of his posts…. Not like I actually read 90% of what he wrote anyway.”

05-24-06 “I guess I am just thinking out loud that maybe this guy isn’t wrong…even though he can’t seem to easily articulate why he is right.” Mel Lindauer could not help but chime in: “…[Hocus has] now started writing responses to his own posts (his #31 responds to his own #28), even though he fails to answer direct questions from others…”

05/26/06 “Rob, I suspect you will always be an outsider…. Rob… You would probably accomplish more and open more minds with less incendiary talk about flawed theories/hypotheses and spend more time on actual alternative hypotheses that may offer a better approach in solving the SWR problem.”

06/04/06 “I’ve also put Hocus on ignore. He uses lots of words to say very little. Try it yourself…”

06/04/06 Hocus – An Irritant? “As way of disclosure, let me say that I tend to skip through most of Hocus’s posts because they are long winded….”

06/17/06 “Do good fathers voluntarily place their kids in financial hardship?”

06/04/06 “Had I stumbled across all those hoco-posts right off, I would have left immediately… people like me owe the diehards a debt of gratitude… polarization of the board [is what] Hocus is aiming for…”

06-03-06 “Apparently Rob is now trying to rewrite the Vanguard Diehards forum history with his remarks at #54. [Rob] would have folks who don’t know any better think that he was one of the original founders of this forum…. he had nothing at all to do with the founding of this board. In fact, he showed up about seven years too late for the founding party. And I thought his dream was to be a non-fiction writer? With such a vivid imagination, perhaps he should reconsider that choice. Regards, Mel”

06/04/06 “i have an old barn that needs a lightning rod. are you available Rob? Wink”

06/04/06 “… put hocus on ignore if he bothers you… I did. I also, put on ignore several posters who inevitably crop up when hocus makes a statement, and those 3 or 4 posters who appear to be his alter egos. I assure you, it makes reading these thread a whole lot easier. Petrocelli”

07/07/06 “…valuation at time of retirement has a big impact on the long term withdrawal rates so not to run out of money. Now how I deal with that information is my challenge.”

08/05/06 “Saying it is so doesn’t make it so. Please remember these words, as they apply to you to. Rob, so far you have managed to convince me that the SWR is 4%. Since you seem to have a different definition of SWR that the rest of us, would you please provide a simple definition of your term?… To me, your advice is very destructive to quality retirement.”

08/31/06 “I simply don’t agree with his ideas.”

09/29/06 [resetting asset allocation based on current valuations?] “In the end, I would say the “I don’t know, I don’t care” setting works best for me.”

10/31/06 “valuations clearly do affect SWR in theory, but, as Paul points out, as a practical matter any type of set formula may do more harm than good.”

01/20/07 “It’s hogwash. It appears an awful lot of work has been put into this house of cards. But the foundation is shaky…. the whole thing falls apart after about 5 minutes of analysis because it is a misapplication of stats. WERman, PhD”

2/19/07 “For those who may not have the energy to endure a thread of people tiring of Hocomania, here are a few highlights: [snip] I would say that he has gone off the deep end, but that doesn’t sound quite right to me. He has spent so much time in the deep end that I doubt he knows very much about where the shallow end is anymore. What I find fascinating is that there is always someone who appears on every board saying that Hocus is being treated unfairly. Almost universally, that is followed by someone else who says they once felt the same way until they too were Hocused. It is incredible how he is able to wear out his welcome at every single place he goes to.

2/20/07 raddr-Site Admin: “My preemptive banning of the Troll Twins is starting to look more and more like the best decision I have made since I decided to retire in 2001, lol.”

02/20/07 “Rob: We’re similar… Yet, our experience on the Vanguard Diehards board has been very different: No one has ever accused me of hijacking a thread… The responses to my posts are mostly cordial….no one has me on their “ignore” list…if I am able to attend Diehards VI, I think I would be welcomed rather than turned down.”

02/24/07 “I think that just not mentioning [hocus] is probably a good policy”

03/14/07 “I think pretty much the only problem with the other forum was that personal attacks were freely permitted, and hocus was allowed to run rampant… Regards, Dr. Jim”

4/10/07 “Actually, hocus as banned because of the fuss he made at another board. TMF let him rage uncontrolled here for months, but the minute he let off at another board, they canned him.”

08/01/07 “I recreated Al’s defunct E-R.org status forum and, for what its worth, pre-banned hocus and jwr, along with anyone named “rob”. Apologies in advance if you wanted to use the username ‘robxxx’ and aren’t a nutjob. There will be no new board generals on my watch…”

09/05/07 “Hocus does not have my permission to use my words or stories anywhere, ever.”

There’s a lot of emotion evidenced in those words, Anonymous. For all of us to become better investors, we need to think about where that emotion is coming from and how we can work together to rein it in. The bottom line is that, in the first 22 years of our discussions, not one Buy-and-Holder has been able to post a link to the page in the Greaney retirement study that contains a valuation adjustment. I wonder why.

My best wishes to you and yours.

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

“ If everyone followed the peer-reviewed research, we wouldn’t have bull markets. Anonymous.”

Your opinion is not research. What you want is for everyone to do what you say. Sorry, but this is not a dictatorship. People all run away from you, avoid you and/or block you. You keep telling us how everyone else is wrong, but you never consider that you are the problem.

I want everyone to feel free to express their honest views. I don’t want intimidation tactics employed by the members of Buy-and-Hold Goon Squads to have any influence in what people say about how stock investing works. It’s not just my opinion that Shiller’s research shows that valuations affect long-term returns. It was because he produced this amazing, revolutionary advance in our understanding of how stock investing works that he was awarded a Nobel prize in Economics.

“People” do not run away from me or avoid me or block me. The sorts of individuals who have put up posts in “defense” of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney do. Thousands of our fellow community members have expressed a desire to see every discussion board and blog on the Internet opened to honest discussion of the last 43 years of peer-reviewed research in this field. That ain’t running away from me. That’s embracing my core message.

I believe that the same laws that apply in every field of human endeavor other than the investment advice field should apply in the investment advice field as well. That’s where I’m coming from re this matter.

My best wishes to you and yours.

Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

Everyone has always been open to the research.  What you are referring to is your opinions of the research.  You have had ample opportunity to present your opinions.  You have done so thousands of times.  There are no unanswered questions.  The problem for you is that people just don’t agree with you.  You just can’t take no for an answer.  People just grew tired of you repeating the same things, refusing to answer questions and making up stories (such as criminal acts, calling people goons and referring to John Bogle as a con-man).  That type of behavior is unacceptable.  We do not have to tolerate it.  Thus, you are rightfully banned.

My opinion of Shiller’s research showing that valuations affect long-term returns is that Shiller’s research shows that valuations affect long-term returns. That much would certainly be fair to say.

My best wishes to you, Anonymous.

Rob