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

Rather than discuss any of your theories (which have, in practice, failed spectacularly) you’re discussing having been banned from websites that mostly don’t even exist anymore while refusing to post on the far more popular websites that exist today. Believe me, YouTube and reddit will not ban you for your investing theories. You’re free to post to all even remotely prominent sites except for Bogleheads (which is a pretty small website in the grand scheme of things).

Bogleheads is not small in terms of its influence. The people who post there are smart and well-informed. The vast majority are Buy-and-Holders but the majority are open to hearing the other side of the story.

It’s not an accident that I met Wade Pfau at Bogleheads. He liked all the same thing about it that I liked. And lots of people there liked him. Lindauer didn’t. But lots of people did.

It’s also not an accident that Bogle put up a post there saying that he had come around to believing that there are circumstances in which market timing can work. Bogle was searching for a compromise. His statement was not quite an endorsement of Valuation-Informed Indexing. But it was a very positive sign. Had we explored Bogle’s statement in some depth, we could have changed the world.

What if Bogle had assured Pfau that he would take care of Lindauer? That would have changed the world.

Those who posted in defense of Lindauer held us back just as those who posted in defense of Greaney held us back at the Motley Fool board. But that board has huge potential. I see it as pretty much the perfect place to spread the word re Valuation-Informed Indexing. I certainly do not have majority support there or anything even remotely close to it. But there are smart and well-informed people there who would be dynamite in their efforts to spread the word if only we could make progress in reining in the abusiveness of the Lindauerheads.

Please mark me down as being pro-Bogelheads (but anti-Lindauerheads).

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:

Jack Bogle explains why Rob Bennett is wrong:

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/t052-c016-s001-resist-the-folly-of-market-timing.html

John Bogle, founder of the Vanguard Group of mutual funds, wrote of market timing: “After nearly 50 years in this business, I do not know of anybody who has done it successfully and consistently. I don’t even know of anybody who knows anybody who has done it successfully and consistently.”

John Bogle has been consistent and Rob Bennett has been wrong about market timing.

Bogle said what you quoted him as saying.

He also said this:

“Big moves out of stocks should not be done at all. But “tactical asset allocation — I should say strategic asset allocation rather than tactical — can be done at very rare times, so rare and so difficult to observe, maybe six times in an investor’s lifetime, three times when the market is stupidly high and three times when stupidly low.”

And Bogle endorsed Bill Bernstein’s book, in which Bernstein said that the 4 percent rule was a full two percentage points off the mark at the top of the bubble. To say that valuations affect the value proposition of stocks that much is to implicitly say that market timing (going with a lower stock allocations when the value proposition of stocks is low than what you go with when the value proposition of stocks is high) always works and is always required,

Bogle was all over the map when it came to market timing. He even engaged in it himself! There was an interview in which he said that he lowered his stock allocation in 1999, in part because of the insane valuations that applied at the time, And of course he benefited from doing so. If Bogle truly believes that he has never known anyone who engaged in market timing successfully, he should have introduced himself to himself. He was a nice guy. And smart as the dickens too. I think he would have come to like himself if he has given himself half a chance.

We should all have wanted to know what a giant like Bogle truly believed about market timing. But of course to find out we would have had to have opened every site on the internet to honest posting The reason why Bogle hesitated to frequently offer his pro-market-timing views is that he was afraid of what Mel Lindauer and his Goon Squad would do to him if he spoke with complete honesty about what the last 41 years of peer-reviewed research teaches us about this important subject.

I wanted to know what Bogle thought! And I want to know what people in this field think today! So I favor opening every site to honest posting. I think that the Goon stuff is garbage. It hurts us all. It is holding us all back.

My best wishes to you.

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:

Bogle was consistent in what he said.  You, on the other hand, spin a story to fit your agenda.

Bogle wasn’t a tiny bit consistent. Bogle endorsed Bernstein’s book. Bernstein said in his book that the 4 percent rule was off by a full two percentage points at the top of the bubble. There were millions of retirees who took that rule into consideration when planning their retirements. So they needed to know that it was in error. Bogle knew this by reading Bernstein’s book, Did he do anything to get the 4 percent rule corrected? There was a raging controversy at the Bogleheads Forum about it after I pointed out the error in the Greaney study. It would have been a HUGE help to me if Bogle had come out clearly and firmly in favor of a correction. He did not do that. Huh?

Please explain.

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:

“ We couldn’t possibly disagree more, Anonymous. There were hundreds of people at Boglehead who indicated that I was one of their favorite posters. Those people should be able to hear from the posters that they want to hear from.”

Bogleheads was explicitly started with the goal to keep you out, given your history of bad behavior. No one wanted you there.

That’s false. There were many people there who told me that I was the first person they ever heard talk about stock investing in a way that made complete sense. It was’t a majority. But I was a significant minority, about 10 percent of the board community.

Even John Bogle had a post where he said that he could see how Valuation-Informed Indexing could work! I think it would be fair to say that , when you’ve lost John Bogle….

If it hadn’t been for the criminal behavior of those who were posting in “defense” of Mel Lindauer, Bogle would have expanded on those comments and we all would have enjoyed an amazing learning experience. I believe that the announcement of prison sentences for those who have posted in “defense” of Lindauer and Greaney are going to send shock waves through all investing communities. I am proud to be able to say that I have been speaking out in strong opposition to the criminal stuff dating back to the evening of August 27, 2002, which is the day when Greaney advanced his first death threat and I abandoned my belief in Buy-and-Hold and began my quest to develop the first true research-based strategy, Valuation-Informed Indexing.

My best and warmest wishes to you and yours, Anonymous.

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:

When Bogle put up his posts about the success of buy and hold, he was sending a message that quick rich timing scheme were a bunch of garbage and that he was also supporting Mel over Rob Bennett.

Bogle has said negative things about market timing on many occasions. That’s a fact. He has this little riff where he would say that not only did he not know anyone for whom market timing had worked, he did not know anyone who knew anyone for whom market timing had worked. But Bogle said in an interview that he himself timed the market successfully.

He lowered his own stock allocation in 1999, in part because of the insane CAPE level that applied at the time. He benefited from doing that as the return was much lower than the average long-term return for many years thereafter. So Bogle obviously knew someone for whom market timing worked. Unless we are to believe that Bogle does not know himself!

It’s very hard for anyone to talk about these matters with complete honesty, Anonymous. The experts made a mistake when they came to believe that the market was efficient. They hurt millions of people in very serious ways with that mistake and they don’t like the idea of people finding out about the mistake. So they make things uncomfortable for people who speak honestly re these matters.

But our Wall Street Con Men friends would like to come clean! Nothing could be more clear. Bogle was trying to come clean when he said that he could see how Valuation-Informed Indexing could work. If Lindauer had expressed a willingness to travel a bit down a more constructive road, Bogle would have jumped on the opportunity to take a sad song and make it better.

We all want the same things deep down inside. We all are capable of making mistakes and, when we do make them, we have to count on our friends to help us find our way to getting those mistakes corrected. It is those who encourage us to correct our mistakes promptly who are our true best friends. Bogle was being a friend to Lindauer. Lindauer was not being much of a friend in return when he slapped down Bogle’s suggestion to take things to a higher road.

That’s my sincere take, in any event.

Bogle did not behave perfectly. But he did make an effort on occasion. I cannot recall Lindauer ever doing that (I believe that Taylor Larimore made an effort along those lines on at least one occasion).

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:

Put me down for standing behind Jack and Mel. People like you that make up lies need to be put in your place.

When John Bogle put up his post saying that he could see how Valuation-Informed Indexing could work, I believe that he was putting out a feeler to Mel Lindauer. He was trying to resolve the frictions so that everyone could get along. If Lindauer truly supported Bogle, he would have jumped at that opportunity. He would have said that he agree with Bogle that Valuation-Informed Indexing can work and all of the nasty stuff would have been behind us.

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:

When did Bogle say he was afraid? I missed that.

Bogle put forward a post saying that he could see how it would work for an investor to change his stock allocation six times during the course of an investing lifetime, three times when prices reached insanely high levels and three times when prices reached insanely low levels. That’s Valuation-Informed Indexing! That should have settled the matter.

Why didn’t it? It didn’t because Bogle did not take the obvious next step of saying: “Given that there is 39 years of peer-reviewed research supporting market timing, all of the criminally abusive stuff we have seen from the sorts of individuals who have put up posts in “defense” of Mel Lindauer needs to come to a full and complete stop by the close of business today.” Why didn’t he do that? Bogle was afraid of what you Goons would do to him if he posted in complete honesty. There is no other possible explanation of his strange behavior.

We are all afraid of you. Our nation adopted laws against extortion and against financial fraud and against threats of physical violence for good reasons. Without those laws, we can never achieve progress as a society. There are always going to be some people who don’t want to move on from the old ways and who will turn to criminal acts to block the progress that benefits all of us.

This has been our problem re the safe withdrawal rate matter going back to the morning of May 13, 2002. It doesn’t tale 18 years to determine whether or not a retirement study posted at some guy’s web site contained a valuation adjustment or not. I mean, please give me a freakin’ break.

Bogle (the Honest Version, Not the Goon-Intimidated Version) Fan Rob

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently put to the discussion thread for one of my columns at the Value Walk site:

Spare us the flowery words about John Bogle. Upon the announcement of his passing, you still referred to him as the biggest con-man. There is no one, including you that has had a successful track record, based on outcomes, using market timing. Your own predictions of market crashes, including those made on this website have failed. If anyone would have followed your advice, they would have had a miserable financial outcome. When are you going to take responsibility for your own advice versus pointing fingers at others?

I love John Bogle. I’m sorry if that sounds “flowery” to you. But that’s the way it is. I view myself as the biggest supporter that Bogle has ever had. Before he died, I was telling him that he should update Buy-and-Hold to reflect Shiller’s research findings. Had Bogle done that, Buy-and-Hold would work. I have a funny feeling that his intention starting out was to develop an investment strategy that worked. So I definitely feel that I was trying to help the guy out in a way that lots of people who call themselves his friend were not. Anyway, Bogle’s stuff is the tops. But he was wrong in his many suggestions that it is not necessary for investors to practice price discipline when buying stocks, in this fellow’s sincere view.

Was Bogle a con man? In an important sense, he was. I wouldn’t say that he was a con man in every sense of the word. I think that, if you had given Bogle a lie detector test and asked him if he thought that Buy-and-Hold was a good strategy, he would have answered “yes” and he would have passed the test. I think that he sincerely believed in Buy-and-Hod. But I think that he was conning himself into sticking with that belief for decades after Shiller published his research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. If valuations affect long-term returns, then stock investing risk is not stable but variable and investors seeking to keep their risk profile stable over time MUST lower their stock allocations when prices go to insanely high levels. Bogle didn’t want to think about that because he had a personal pride interest in not acknowledging that he was wrong in thinking that long-term timing is not required. So I think that he was conning himself and that his unwillingness to speak plainly about these matters hurt lots of people.

I love the guy. I think he was the best. But it is true that I think of him as one of those darned flawed humans. He made many huge positive contributions. But he didn’t get them all right. And we insult him when we act as if his ideas are beyond criticism. That’s my sincere take, in any event.

Bogle came close to endorsing Valuation-Informed Indexing before he died. He said that it made sense for investors to lower their stock allocations three times in the course of an investing lifetime because of valuations and to increase them three times in the course of an investing lifetime. That’s the concept. That made me very happy. I think that the only reason why he did not come out an make a full endorsement is that this issue has become so “controversial” that he felt that it would be too embarrassing to do so. I put much of the blame for that on the people who act as if Bogle is beyond ever making a mistake. We all make mistakes from time to time. When we suggest that Bogle is not human. we set him up for a big fall down the line. We end up hurting him. I find that very sad.

Wade Pfau and I spent 16 months co-authoring research showing that Valuation-Informed Indexing has been FAR superior to Buy-and-Hold for as far back as we have good record of stock prices (that’s 150 years). It’s not only that market timing sometimes works. Market timing ALWAYS works. You just have to be sure that it is long-term timing that you are engaging in and not short-term timing (which really does not work — Thanks, John Bogle!).

And that’s just what you would expect to find, is it not? Long-term market timing is price discipline. Is there any market in which price discipline does not always work? I sure cannot think of any. So why would anyone think that price discipline (long-term market timing!) would not work when buying stocks? It always works. We should be telling people that. It is the most important thing to know about stock investing. When we all feel free to spread the word of what the last 38 years of peer-reviewed research in this field tells us about how stock investing really works, we will all be a richer (in every sense of the word) people.

Or so Rob Bennett sincerely believes, in any event, you know?

My best wishes to you, Sammy.

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:

“I have my name on the most important piece of peer-reviewed research published in this field in 30 years. That ain’t nothing.”

What paper has your name listed as an author?

If you count being listed in the credits section, then I can show you a few dozen that I have my name on. No big deal.

I am proud to have my name mentioned in the credits section of the Bennett/Pfau research. That’s the most important piece of peer-reviewed research published in this field in the past 30 years. Bogle has indicated an interest in knowing the answers to the question explored in that paper and Bogle is one of my heroes. So I certainly am proud to have played a big role in getting those answers to him. If Bogle were thinking clearly, he would have celebrated the research that Wade and I prepared together. He would not only have spoken up in our support when Linduaer attacked us, he would have called a special meeting of the Bogleleads Community so that we could explore that research together in great depth.

One of the community members there said that our research challenges many of the most basic principles of Buy-and-Hold. Bogle responded defensively to that challenge. That is unfortunate in the extreme. He should have welcomed the learning experience that would have certainly followed from widespread dissemination of the research. Bogle dropped the ball on that one and you Goons — who call yourselves friends of his — should have helped him rein in his defensiveness and advance the Buy-and-Hold cause in a big way (Valuation-Informed Indexing is really just Buy-and-Hold 2.0 — Buy-and-Hold is a research-based strategy and so, when new research is published, the strategy must of course be modified to incorporate the new research findings).

And of course I played a bigger role in the development of that research than the role usually played by someone mentioned in the credits section. I had been developing the Valuation-Informed Indexing concept for over seven years when Wade contacted me and asked me if I would be willing to work with him to prepare research showing the superiority of Valuation-Informed Indexing over Buy-and-Hold. I was the person who discovered the errors in the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies. We never would have had The Great Safe Withdrawal Rate Debate had I not done that and it was The Great Debate that got Wade interested in doing research on Valuation-Informed Indexing in the first place. So I am properly referred to as the co-author. Wade made clear in numerous e-mails that he sent me in the 16 months in which we worked together that he thought that my assistance was absolutely critical. He asked me many questions during the time we were preparing the research and he always thanked me profusely for the help that I was able to offer him.

The Bennett/Pfau research simply wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for the seven years of my participation in The Great Safe Withdrawal Rate Debate that preceded it. And, strangely enough, even you Goons played a positive role at times. It is though interactions with others that we come to understand new ideas more clearly and in more depth. I learned a lot in those seven years (and in the nine years since). You weren’t intending to help me learn with your ruthless abusiveness. But there were times when you did. I only wish that you had learned more yourselves. Had you been open to learning, we all would be in a better and happier and more life-affirming place today.

I offer no apologies for advancing the world’s understanding of how stock investing works through publication of that amazing piece of peer-reviewed research. I hope there comes a time when you can take delight in what one of your fellow community members did by co-authoring that research. I think it will happen. Probably not until after the crash. But I think that it will happen down the road a piece. And our interactions will become warmer and more productive when it does.

Please take good care, man.

Co-Authoring 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:

Check this out: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-things-we-can-still-learn-from-vanguards-jack-bogle-2018-10-08

Of course you don’t like being reminded of the Bogleheads conference, for obvious reasons, but Bogle does throw you a bone: “It would probably take a 25% drop [for the stock market] to get to its normalized value.”

Not bad, right? He’s meeting you halfway. How about lopping a couple years off the old man’s prison sentence?

I believe that Bogle is saying what he truly believes. And I think that’s healthy. It could be that he’s right and that I’m wrong. If there’s even a 1 percent chance that he’s right, I want people to hear that point of view. So I am glad that we have him around to express it.

You don’t see any death threats in that paragraph that I just wrote. You don’t see any demands for unjustified board bannings. You don’t see any acts of defamation. You don’t see any threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs. That’s the difference. It’s when that sort of thing is added to the mix that financial fraud comes into the picture. That’s where prison sentences come into the picture.

Jack Bogle should say what he believes. So should Bill Bernstein. So should Larry Swedroe. So should Robert Shiller. So should Rob Bennett. So should Microlepsis. So should John D. Craig. And on and on and on and on and on. We all have a different perspective. We all have to post our honest views for a board community as a while to achieve its potential.

It is only the Buy-and-Holders that engage in criminal acts to intimidate the “other side” from expressing its sincere views. I’ve never seen a Valuation-Informed Indexer do that.

So who do you think people are going to be angry at in the event that we see another crash, as Shiller’s research indicates is likely? They are going to be angry at the Buy-and-Holders. And they are going to learn about the criminal acts. And they are going to demand prison sentences. That’s what I truly believe is going to happen.

Do I want it to happen? I do not. But you know what? I am not Superman. I have not been able to stop this stuff from happening. If the tables were turned and there was 37 years of peer-reviewed research showing that I got an important number wrong in a retirement study posted at my web site, I would be praising the guy who brought it to my attention morning noon and night. I would be thanking him for saving me from a lot of embarrassment and for keeping me from taking on huge financial liabilities and even a possible prison sentence.

That’s not what happened with John Greaney. And that’s not what happened with Mel Lindauer. And that’s not what happened with Jack Bogle.

I love Bogle. There is no one alive on Planet Earth who holds him in higher esteem. All you have to do to see that is to look at all of the Bogle ideas that I incorporated into the Valuation-Informed Indexing model. Or consider whose book it was that persuaded me that Greaney got the numbers wrong in his study — it was Bogle’s. I hadn’t read Shiller’s book at the time. Bogle was the bigger influence at the time.

I love Bogle. I do not love financial fraud. That’s the story here.

I don’t have the ability to lop any time off of anyone’s prison sentence. I am not going to be serving on any of the juries that will be formed in the days following the next price crash. So I will have zero say. The only possible influence that I might have is that I think I might be able to say some things that would put Bogle’s behavior and Lindauer’s behavior and Greaney’s behavior in a somewhat more positive light than some of the millions who have seen their retirement accounts wiped out will be inclined to put it. And it is my intent to do everything in my power to put their behavior in the best light possible. That’s as far as I can go and that far I will indeed go.

I am not going to say that I believe that Greaney’s study contains a valuation adjustment. If I did that, I would be at risk of going to prison myself. So no freakin’ thanks, you know?

I love Bogle. I hate financial fraud. I wish that I could say that Bogle has never done anything to suggest that he either supports Lindauer or at the very least tolerates him. I cannot say that. All that is said on our boards goes into Post Archives. There is a lot of material in which Bogle has given the very strong impression that he either supports or at the very bare minimum tolerates Lindauer. So I am bound to acknowledge that reality. And then others decide who goes to prison and for how long.

If there is every anything that I can do to help Bogle or Lindauer or Greaney or anyone else, I am going to do it. In three seconds and you wont have to ask me a second time. But I am never going to say that I believe that Greaney’s study contains a valuation adjustment. Thousands of people have looked at the study over the course of the past 16 years and not one has been able to identify a valuation adjustment.

Bogle f’d up when he failed to speak up about the Lindauer matter. Guess who wrote to him on several occasions imploring him to take action? And it wasn’t just me. There were a number of us who wrote to him. And no action was taken. I can love the man to death and praise him to the skies and it won’t change that simple reality. Bogle f’d up and only a small number of his friends possessed the courage and love for the man to implore him to fix the f-up. I wish that you had stepped forward at the time, Anonynmous. You might have made the difference, man. You never know unless you try.

I hope that all that helps at least a tiny bit.

Love the man, hate financial fraud, hate the idea of seeing any of my many Buy-and-Hold friends go to prison. For obvious reasons.

I have an article at my site titled something like “12 Reasons Why Valuation-Informed Indexing Might Not Work.” Bogle should write an article like that re Buy-and-Hold. I shouldn’t have to be the one pointing out the flaws in Bogle’s strategy. He should do it. That way he gains the high ground. That would be awesome. He should stop behaving defensively and make an effort to get ahead of the curve. There would still be lots of people who stuck with Buy-and-Hold. But the poisonous atmosphere that influences every discussion held at the Bogleheads Forum today would dissipate it he did that. I encourage my good friend to get that article written and posted by the close of business today. For EVERYONE’s benefit.

My best and warmest wishes to you and yours.

Prison-Sentence-Lopping (If Only He Could!) Rob