A Rich Life

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

“People Respect and Admire Jack Bogle. When He Sees a Mel Lindauer Behaving in the Manner in Which Mel Linduaer Behaves and Does Nothing About It, That Scares People.”

by

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

If you think that the Bogleheads Forum does not have great power to help or hurt people, we have a very, very different take re the matter.

When I was at Bogleheads, there were hundreds of very smart and good people who expressed a desire that honest posting be permitted. Mel Lindauer hated that idea. He was willing to destroy the board rather than permit honest posting there. But how did he pull that off? He’s one guy and there are hundreds on the other side. How did he do it?

He did it with Jack Bogle’s help.

Jack never personally advanced death threats. But he appeared in threads with Mel. He got Mel that column with Forbes. He showed up at events with Mel. I saw a photo once at the Goon Central board in which Jack and Mel are standing close enough together that you can see them both in the same photo!

People respect and admire Jack Bogle. When he sees a Mel Linduaer behaving in the manner in which Mel Lindauer behaves and does nothing about it, that scares people. Bogle has power in this world. And when he fails to speak up about a Mel Linduaer, he puts that power to a very great negative use.

The other side of the story is that that board has the power to bring the economic crisis to an end. That’s a big deal. There are many influential people who participate or lurk at Bogleheads. If we had been talking there about the true cause of the economic crisis going back to the first day, that front-page New York Times story on Buy-and-Hold that we all deep in our hearts long to see would have appeared a long, long time ago.

The internet discussion board is a powerful communications medium of the future, What. You couldn’t be more wrong than you are in the suggestion you make here.

The question is whether the power of that board community is going to be put to use serving good purposes or bad ones. I entertain both hopes and fears re that one. I know how much good that board can do and I hope to see the day it gets about the business of doing it. And I know how much harm that board is doing in its current incarnation and I fear for how those doing the harm are going to feel about themselves when they finally come to realize how many human lives have been destroyed.

There is a power that comes with being the biggest investing board on Planet Internet, What. And with power must come a sense of responsibility.

I am sure.

Rob

“Bogle Associates with People Who Make Death Threats and Fails to Speak Up About It. That’s What Gives the Goons the Power They Possess Today.”

by

Set forth below are the words of a comment that I recently put to the Goon Central board:

do you really think any reputable university would pay any heed to anything anonymous individuals we’re saying about one of their employees? 

Wade didn’t say that he thought that the officials at his University would necessarily believe everything that you Goons said. He said that he was concerned that his career would be done harm all the same because they just wouldn’t like the controversy and they wouldn’t like having to deal with the crazy situation. Since it was his work creating the problem, he would be punished.

Yes, I find that believable. I once compared Greaney’s behavior threatening a woman at Motley Fool to the behavior of a rapist. The others at the board wanted to help their friend but they didn’t want to report Greaney. Why? It was for the same reason that many women don’t want to report rapes. There are intense social pressures not to do so. Rape is such a horrible crime that all in society affected by it are ashamed about what happened. So we look to blame the victim — she must have done something to bring this on. Wade was afraid that he would be blamed for having brought on the smear campaigns against him. There are Buy-and-Holders (and perhaps even some Valuation-Informed Indexers) who would have said: “Wade must have done something.” I don’t think Wade is entirely wrong about that.

It was not solely the threats made by the Goons that caused Wade to flip. Six other factors are: (1) the lack of a positive reaction to his research by the majority of posters at Bogleheads; (2) the charges by Mel Linduaer that he had engaged in unethical research practices and the failure of other community members to stand up to Mel; (3) the feelings of envy that Wade knew he would inspire in his peers if he were put up for a Nobel prize at his age; (4) the failure of Bogle to speak up about Mel’s attacks and about the threats made by the Greaney Goons; (5) Wade’s experiences seeing what had happened to other Valuation-Informed Indexers, including myself, and the intense, burning hate that had been directed at them by Buy-and-Holders; and (6) Wade’s lack of understanding of many aspects of the Valuation-Informed Indexing model.

It was the combined effect of all these factors that caused the flip. The threats were the trigger and the threats tell the most compelling story. It is amazing to hear that such threats were made in public and that Wade did not call the police when they were made. It is a compelling part of the story and the threat element of the story suggests the other elements because Wade’s failure to call the police informs the listener that something exceedingly odd is going on.

You ask whether what the Goons did could have mattered. He flipped, didn’t he? And Shiller to this day holds back on telling us all he knows about stock investing, doesn’t he? And the bans at the 15 boards and blogs remain in place to this day, don’t they? And Mel Lindauer and John Greaney retain posting rights to this day, don’t they? And the economic crisis continues to this day, doesn’t it? And there are still people to this day who recommend Buy-and-Hold strategies, are there not? And the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies remain uncorrected, do they not? And Wade now buries the valuation question in the research he publishes so that it will not attract too much attention or controversy, does he not?

Yes, what the Goons do matters.

Not because of the inherent power of the Goons. The Goons have little inherent power. If Bogle spoke up about Lindauer when I sent my first e-mail to him, there obviously would never have been any threats made against Wade. But Bogle didn’t speak up, did he? That’s the story here.

When Bogle speaks up, it is over. For so long as Bogle fails to speak up, his silence is interpreted by millions of people as an implicit endorsement of the Goon behavior. People trust Bogle and the other experts in this field. They need to see Bogle and the other experts take action to feel confident that what their common sense tells them is so really is so. They need to see Bogle take action against the Goons to understand and accept that the rules of social intercourse that apply in every other area of human endeavor apply in the investing realm as well.

Bogle doesn’t make death threats himself. But Bogle associates with people who make death threats and fails to speak up about it. That’s the problem. That’s what needs to change. That’s what gives the Goons the power they possess today. When Bogle speaks up, all the rest of us will feel comfortable speaking up. When Bogle speaks up, the fever will break and we will all make it together to the other side of The Big Black Mountain and a thing that has brought us a lot of bad over the course of 10 years will begin very quickly bringing us a lot of good and will continue doing so for a long, long time.

Bogle needs to call out Mel Linduaer and John Greaney in the way that I have called out Mel Linduaer and John Greaney. It doesn’t matter much what Bogle says about Valuation-Informed Indexing. He needs to behave re the Lindauer/Greaney matter in the manner in which Arnott said he has always behaved in the presence of Arnott. He can disagree on substance. He must act like a gentleman on process questions. He must come out strongly in opposition to death threats and defamation and board bannings and threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs. When he does that, the substance questions will take care of themselves.

We can handle the substance questions so long as normal process rules apply. We cannot handle Jack Bogle attending functions with people who have put up posts in “defense” of Mel Linduaer and John Greaney and saying nothing about their behavior. That failure to speak up sends a signal that imprisons us all. It is so far outside of our social norms that we cannot process it. People fear what a John Bogle, with all his connections and influence and money, can do to them if they “cross” him. People need to know in no uncertain terms that Bogle is on the side of those who want the sorts of individuals who have put up posts in “defense” of Lindauer and Greaney serving prison terms rather than posting on our boards. Only Jack himself can change the public perception that has grown over the past 10 years that he is ethically compromised re this matter because of his own feelings of personal pride over having developed the Buy-and-Hold concept.

Yes, the Goons matter. They shouldn’t, that’s certainly fair to say. But today they do. Because people who do matter have failed to disassociate themselves from the Goons in the matter in which they would if we were talking about any subject other than the errors that were made in the development of the Buy-and-Hold concept (because all the research needed to get it 100 percent right was not available at the time the concept was initially formulated).

Rob

Former Financial Analysts Journal Editor Rob Arnott to Rob Bennett: “I’m Too Embroiled in My Own Controversies to Magnify Them Further With Collaboration. Your Ideas [About Valuation-Informed Indexing] Are Sound.”

by

My last two blog entries reported on e-mail correspondence between Former Financial Analysts Journal Editor Rob Arnott and I in which we discussed the brutal (my word) intimidation tactics that have been employed by Buy-and-Holders in recent years to block the publication of academic research revealing the deficiencies of the “status quo” (Arnott’s phrase) thinking on how the stock market works. He reported that he has had difficulty finding journals to publish his more controversial work and that articles of his that challenged the conventional thinking of today have generated hate mail. In fact, he has not yet been able to find a journal to publish an article on an important topic that he co-authored with Nobel Laureate Harry Markowitz! (I checked his e-mail three times when writing these words to be sure that I did not just imagine this part while experiencing a fever.) I expressed my shock at this report and noted that I believe that the reason why I feel a greater sense of urgency re solving the problem is that  my perspective is that of a journalist rather than that of an investing expert and I thus tend to focus on the public policy implications of the 30-year cover-up of Yale Economics Professor Robert Shiller’s “revolutionary” (Shiller’s word) findings showing how stock investing really works (not at all how the Buy-and-Holders have been for many years now telling millions of middle-class investors it works).

Late in the afternoon of December 6, 2012, Arnott replied to my e-mail of that morning. He wrote: “I am very pleased that you were not offended at my frank advice.  I’m too embroiled in my own controversies to magnify them further with collaboration.  Your ideas are sound.  Your stridency is unhelpful to your cause.  Anyway, all the best.”

I immediately sent back the following words: “I understand. I hope that I am not guilty of stridency. You are certainly not the only person who has said that I am. So I am going to need to work harder to examine my own behavior. I wish you all the best as well.”

I then sent an e-mail to Vanguard Founder John Bogle, Four Pillars of Investing Author William Bernstein, and Academic Researcher Wade Pfau saying: “Since the three of you were copied on the e-mail that I sent to Rob Arnott this morning, I wanted you to see the resolution of our conversation as set forth in his e-mail to me this afternoon and then my response to him. And I of course wish the three of you all the best that this life has to offer as well. Please take good care.”

The following afternoon I received a final e-mail from Rob Arnott containing the following warm message: “Have a wonderful holiday season!”

Rob Bennett to Former Financial Analysts Journal Editor Rob Arnott: “The Illustrations You Offer of the Problem of Buy-and-Hold Dogmatism Are Shocking. I Know From My Discussions With Financial Planners and Bloggers That Many Others Have Had Similar Experiences. This Must Stop. I Feel More of a Sense of Urgency re This Matter. My Focus Is On the Public Policy Implications. We Are Living Through A Public Tragedy of Epic Proportions.”

by

Yesterday’s blog entry reported on an e-mail that I received from Former Financial Analysts Journal Editor Rob Arnott describing the hostility that his research has generated among “guardians of the status quo” in the investing field. Commenting on my report of how Buy-and-Hold Goons threatened to get Academic Researcher Wade Pfau fired from his job after he published research showing the superiority of Valuation-Informed Indexing strategies over Buy-and-Hold strategies, he said that he has on occasion experienced difficulty in getting his work published (in fact, he has not yet been able to find a journal to publish an article co-authored by Nobel Laureate Harry Markowitz!) and that journals that have published his work have received “hate mail” after doing so. Rob castigated me in his e-mail for embracing “a victim mind-set” and for characterizing those who threatened to send defamatory e-mails to Wade’s employer  as “Goons.” He copied Vanguard Founder John Bogle and The Four Pillars of Investing Author William Bernstein, whom he described as personal friends and whom I noted had failed to speak up on Wade’s behalf when he was under attack, on his response to me. Set forth below is the reply that I sent early on the morning of December 6, 2012 (I also copied Bogle and Bernstein, as well as Wade Pfau):

Rob:

Thanks much for your response. I have been a huge admirer of your work for years. So it was a thrill to receive it. Your frank and balanced and helpful words have added a nice bit of good cheer to my Thursday morning.

I understand that all you know of my work is the one article that I linked to in the e-mail. It pains me to think that the words of that article may have planted the idea in your head that my respect and affection for John Bogle might be any less than your own. In my ranking of the most important investing analysts of all time, Bogle ranks second only to Robert Shiller. I love the man. I admire his accomplishments. I don’t want there ever to be any doubt in anyone’s mind re that aspect of the question. I also of course feel a good bit of respect for the others mentioned in your e-mail, and, in full truth, for all of the Buy-and-Hold pioneers. All of the work that I have done is built on the Buy-and-Hold Model. There would be no Valuation-Informed Indexing today had a number of smart and good people not rolled up their sleeves and did the work needed to generate the many powerful insights that have helped millions to come to a better understanding of how stock investing works.

The illustrations you offer of the problem of Buy-and-Hold dogmatism are shocking. I know from my discussions with financial planners and bloggers that many others have had similar experiences. This must stop.

You say that “that’s life” and that “life isn’t always fair.” That’s so. But our job is to spend every waking hour pushing in the direction of fairness, no? That’s the struggle. That’s what the work that we all do is all about. We will never succeed entirely. But we always keep pushing in that direction. That’s how Bogle achieved what he achieved, is it not? Bogle met resistance in his early days. He soldiered on. The spirit that he possesses that caused him to fight is the cause of much of my admiration of the man. If I were to give up in the face of frustrations, I wouldn’t in the end be much of a friend to our mutual friend John Bogle, in my own assessment. So I always fight on with the aim of bringing things to a better place over time.

I of course agree that Bogle (and all others) must be true to his own beliefs. If he didn’t criticize the aspects of my work that he does not find convincing with as much gusto as I criticize the aspects of his work that I do not find convincing, I couldn’t feel the respect for him that I want him to feel for me. A friend criticizes perceived deficiencies in a friend’s work not out of any animus but out of a desire to help the friend become his better self. That’s the spirit in which I have found fault with one aspect of Bogle’s teachings (the idea that long-term timing is not required for investors seeking to Stay the Course in a meaningful way) and that’s the spirit in which I hope in days to come he will be finding fault with whatever aspects of my teachings he finds unpersuasive.

My sense is that there is only one point re which you and i have a different take of some consequence. We are both seeking to push the general understanding of how stock investing works in the same direction. But I think it would be fair to say that I feel more of a sense of urgency re this matter. My guess is that the reason for this lies in our different backgrounds. I am NOT an investing expert and I do not pretend to be one. I am a journalist. My focus is on the public policy implications of the dogmatism. I would be grateful if you would take a look at two articles that I have written that argue that the heavy promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies was the primary cause of the economic crisis: (1) The True Cause of the Current Financial Crisis; and (2) The Bull Market Caused the Economic Crisis.

Say that there is some truth to what I argue in these articles. We are living through a public tragedy of epic proportions. One the one hand, Wade’s research tells us what we need to know to reduce the risk of stock investing by nearly 70 percent (he shows that the maximum portfolio drawdown percentage is 60 percent for Buy-and-Holders and only 20 percent for Valuation-Informed Indexers). On the other, we are on our way to the Second Great Depression because we have as a society elected to impose a Social Taboo to block the frank discussion of these matters. We all want the same things. There is not one person alive, Buy-and-Holder or Valuation-Informed Indexer, who wants to see us fall into the Second Great Depression or who doesn’t want to know how to invest effectively. How did we ever get ourselves into such a crazy fix? It’s all a quirk of history. Had Shiller published his research showing that valuations affect long-term returns in 1971 rather than in 1981,the name of the book would have been “A Valuation-Informed Walk Down Wall Street” and we would today be living in the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. How do we get from this awful place where we are today to the wonderful place where we all deep in our hearts want to be tomorrow?

We don’t get there by calling each other “Goons” — I think that much is fair to say!

I don’t want to call anyone names, Rob. It’s the last thing I want to do. If you read my interactions with the Goons carefully (I post daily at the Goon Central site), you will see that I call those who attack me so relentlessly and in such brutally personal terms “friend” more often than I call them “Goon.” The Goons are my friends, Rob! These are people I know from the days when we worked together to build the Motley Fool’s Retire Early Board into the most successful board in that site’s history.

Why do I EVER call them “Goons? I am trying to draw attention to a problem. The death threats really did happen. The tens of thousands of acts of defamation really did happen. The board bannings really did happen. The threats to get Wade fired from his job really did happen. These people are in emotional pain. If you have any doubts whatsoever about this, please take a look at the article I wrote detailing the efforts of hundreds of non-Goons to keep the Retire Early and Indexing boards and blogs open to civil and reasoned and honest discussion of all investing issues. 

We shouldn’t be ignoring this emotional pain. We should be trying to help our friends overcome their pain. THAT”S PART OF THE JOB OF AN INVESTING ADVISOR.

Many of the experts in the field don’t see it that way today. They feel that investing analysis is a numbers exercise, that there’s no place in this field for the discussion of human emotions. This is the core mistake that caused all the trouble, in my assessment. When we see people engage in the sorts of behavior that I am referring to here (and which you have obviously experienced as well in somewhat different form because your work is not as internet-based as mine), we need to try to figure out what is going on and to address the problem. I don’t want to ever have to use the word “Goon” again. I won’t ever need to if people like Jack Bogle and Bill Bernstein and Wade Pfau make clear that they expect the published rules of all of the boards and blogs to be followed. When they fail to do this, they send a signal that in this one area the normal rules of social intercourse that keep us all human do not apply. WE NEED TO STOP SENDING THAT SIGNAL. When we start sending the right signals, good things will start happening. Lots of people want to learn but are afraid to speak up. As more and more people come to feel safe in speaking up, the entire social dynamic will change. We will reach a tipping point and things will begin getting better and better and better each day rather than worse and worse and worse. New ideas cannot grow until we create an environment in which sincere and polite and respectful questioning is permitted. And even encouraged!

That’s where I am coming from, in any event. I detect a suggestion in your e-mail that you would be willing to help in an effort to pull things in a positive direction if I would be willing to engage in private discussions. Of course! Why the heck not? I want to know about any ideas that you or Jack or Bill or Wade (I added him on the Cc for my reply) have for the five of us working together to transform these discussions into something viewed as a 100 percent positive for every single person involved in them. Let’s make that happen! Please be assured that I will do anything that I view as even remotely reasonable that you or Jack or Bill or Wade suggest. Please just shoot me back an e-mail with any suggestions or questions or concerns or thoughts or proposals.

Thanks again for getting the ball rolling on this, my plain-speaking friend.

Rob

Former Financial Analysts Journal Editor Rob Arnott to Rob Bennett: “I’ve Had Similar Experiences to Those You Describe. My Work Has Often Triggered Overt Hostility from the Guardians of the Status Quo. I’ve Also Had Difficulties Getting Some of My More Controversial Ideas Published. And the Journals That Published Some of My More Controversial Papers Did Get Hate Mail.”

by

I’ve been sending e-mails to various people letting them know about my article on The Silencing of Academic Researcher Wade Pfau, who showed the superiority of Valuation-Informed Indexing strategies over Buy-and-Hold strategies. Set forth below is the text of an e-mail response that I received on the night of December 5, 2012, from Former FInancial Analysts Journal Editor Rob Arnott. I will provide the text of my response to Rob in tomorrow’s blog entry. Thursday’s blog entry will report on a few brief e-mails that Rob and I exchanged with each other in wrapping up the conversation.

Rob Anott wrote:

I’m copying Jack and Bill [the reference is to Jack Bogle and Bill Bernstein] , who you mention in your article.

I’ve had similar experiences to those you describe; so, I can empathize with you for your travails.  HOWEVER, we part company on how to deal with this challenge.  I roll with it and move on.  You seem to be “stuck” in a victim mind-set.  Characterizing one’s adversaries as Goons is also unhelpful to your cause.

Jack Bogle is a dear friend; he attacks some of my ideas with relish, and it doesn’t bother me.  He’s entitled to a different view, and he’s never personalized his attacks.  Bill Bernstein and I have co-authored one journal article, while agreeing to disagree on a couple of other issues.  I remain good friends with both, with ample mutual respect.  I know Rick, Scott and Larry less well, but I know that we agree on some things and not others.

As you can probably imagine, my work has often triggered overt hostility from the guardians of the status quo.  And, as one of the “godfathers” of Tactical Asset Allocation and of the Fundamental Index® concept, which are kissing-cousins to your work on Valuation-Informed Indexing, it’s clear that you and I both think the markets are inefficient in much the same way.

I’ve also had difficulties getting some of my more controversial ideas published.  For instance, I’m having a dickens of a time getting any journal to publish my work with Harry Markowitz, Jason Hsu and Jun Liu, which shows that a modest amount of error in stock prices would create – and fully explain – the Fama-French size and value effects.  Journals turning down a Nobel Laureate?  Yep, it happens.  And the journals that published some of my more controversial papers did get “hate mail” for doing so.

I also know of two young professors who wanted to do research on Fundamental Index® and reported to me that their colleagues advised them that this line of research could derail their career prospects.  Outrageous?  Not necessarily:  in the early days of Fundamental Index®, people weren’t yet sure whether this was the investing equivalent of “cold fusion”!

These are the same kinds of problems that you describe.  That’s life.  Life isn’t always “fair,” nor is our own perception of “fair” necessarily correct.

In summary, I will not be available to help you protest the injustice of it all.  Feel free to add me to the list of those who declined to help, alongside Jack, et al, as long as you’re also prepared to provide your readers access to this email.

I would strongly encourage you to *not* abandon your ideas, but to find other ways to make your case, and to give up on the name-calling with those who disagree with you.  Best wishes on pursuing a constructive path, exploring new ideas and accepting criticism from others with civility and perhaps even relish.

Business Week Columnist Vivek Wadhwa Tweets a Link to My Article on the Silencing of Academic Researcher Wade Pfau

by

Business Week Columnist Vivek Wadhwa has tweeted a link to my article on the silencing of Academic Researcher Wade Pfau.

Wadhwa has appointments at Duke, Stanford, Emory and Singularity University and writes columns for the Washington Post as well as for Business Week. I think it would be fair to say after this tweet that he is also a Hero to the Middle-Class Investor and an all-around good guy. His web site is here. His bio is here.

Vivek’s tweet reads: “Received worrisome e-mail from Rob Bennett. Warns of risk with Buy-and-Hold Investing. [Link to Wade Pfau Article] — I have no clue.” I sent a response tweet that reads: “Thanks for kindness of link to Wade Pfau article. We all should work together to get word out & bring to wonderful conclusion.”

Vivek has 31,787 followers. These are genuine followers (he follows only 195). Many of his followers are top-notch people. Looking at just the first few names, I saw Vanessa O’Connell of the Wall Street Journal, Christine Lagorio, an Executive Editor at Inc.com, and Charles Cooper, Executive News Editor at CNET.

Vivek learned of the Wade Pfau article as the result of my recent e-mail to him. He responded last night, saying that he felt that the content of the article was “outside of my field of knowledge” but that he was “glad to tweet a question asking if you are right” and thereby to “let others make up their minds.” He asked me what link I would like him to include in the tweet.

I responded this morning. I suggested that he link to the article re the silencing of Pfau by the Buy-and-Holders (A number of Buy-and-Holders threatened to send defamatory e-mails to Wade’s employer in an effort to get him fired from his job for the “crime” of having published research showing the dangers of Buy-and-Hold investing strategies and several big names in the field [including Vanguard Founder John Bogle] failed to take action against those advancing the threats, thereby implicitly encouraging them [I have sent Bogle four e-mails asking for his help with the matter]).

Vivek sent me an e-mail after posting the tweet that stated: “I tweeted a balanced message.” I responded with an e-mail saying: “Thanks a million. That’s perfect. Balance is good!” He wrote back: “Sure.”

The intimidation campaign against Wade came about as a result of a 10-year effort (successful so far!) to cover up the errors in the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies. I reported on the errors in a May 13, 2002, discussion-board post at the Motley Fool site. The author of one of the discredited studies responded by threatening to kill my wife and children if I continued to post honestly on the subject. I continued posting honestly and was banned from the site despite posts by hundreds of my fellow community members saying that the discussion of the how valuations affect retirement planning was the most exciting discussion ever held at that board. In the ten years since, the Goon posters have followed me to hundreds of web sites at which I have posted comments or guest blog entries, always posting abusively and only in extremely rare cases being disciplined in any way for doing so (in contrast, I have been banned from 15 sites at the demand of enraged Buy-and-Holders). Wade learned of my work as a result of my thousands of posts to the Bogleheads forum (before I was banned at that site) and said that he would like to work with me to develop research showing once and for all whether the historical return data supports the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy (my suggested replacement for the Buy-and-Hold strategy) or not. We worked together for 16 months, exchanging hundreds of e-mails. Wade found that everything I had said checked out and expressed amazement that no earlier researcher had reported on these matters (all of my ideas follow logically from research published by Robert Shiller over 30 years ago). He concluded that Valuation-Informed Indexing has for the entire 140 years of historical data available to us provided investors with far higher returns than Buy-and-Hold while exposing them only to greatly reduced risks. “Yes, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing works!” he said.

The The Big Picture Blog recently posted a lengthy article (“Buy-and-Hold Is Dead — And Never Worked in the First Place”) telling the story of my ten years of work developing the Valuation-Informed Indexing concept with the help of the hundreds of my fellow community members who dared to “cross” the Buy-and-Holders by engaging in original research or discussing the implications of research already published (the VII concept is rooted in the 1981 finding of Yale University Economics Professor Robert Shiller that valuations affect long-term returns — Shiller has said in published interviews that he has never dared to tell us all that he knows about stock investing because he fears that he would be branded “unprofessional” if he were to do so). Site Owner Barry Ritholtz separately linked to an article of mine titled Why Buy-and-Holder Investing Can Never Work.

 

“I Cannot Put On a John Bogle Mask and Say the Words He Needs to Say and Have That Act Achieve the Effect We Need to Achieve Here. I Need Bogle’s Help. I Need Your Help in Securing Bogle’s Help.”

by

Set forth below is the text of a response post that I put to the blog entry titled Retired at 48: “I Would Occasionally Get a Response Post Saying I Was “the Best Since Hocus Challenged Us to Think'”

What happened is that I pointed out the errors in the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies in a post that I put to the Motley Fool site on the morning of May 13, 2002. The point that I made was undeniable. Either the studies contain a valuation adjustment or they do not. Anyone who cared to could check. The studies do not contain a valuation adjustment.

This means that Buy-and-Hold has failed. Most people invest specifically for the purpose of financing their retirements. If the Buy-and-Hold Model gets the retirement numbers wildly wrong, Buy-and-Hold has failed us and needs to be replaced. Valuation-Informed Indexing is the obvious replacement. It contains all the elements of the Buy-and-Hold Model that have stood the test of time but deletes the Get Rich Quick element (the idea that investors need not engage in long-term timing) that has caused so much economic destruction.

Lots of people are emotionally addicted to Buy-and-Hold today. This point has been well-established by the 10 years of discussions. So our discovery that Buy-and-Hold has failed caused many people a good deal of emotional pain. I get that. It obviously was not my intent to cause people pain but it is obviously the case that large numbers of people felt such pain and continue to feel it to this day. The question is — What to do?

I say we need to move forward. We need to ACKNOWLEDGE that Buy-and-Hold has failed and move on to the model that actually works — Valuation-Informed Indexing. We are the luckiest group of investors who ever walked Planet Earth. We know what we need to know to reduce the risk of stock investing by 70 percent. We are fools if we do not take advantage of the huge opportunities that have been presented to us.

But the key that turns the lock is the Buy-and-Holders saying The Three Magic Words. For so long as there are people trying to rationalize not taking price into consideration when setting their stock allocations, there are going to be people feeling great emotional pain every time we discuss what the academic research of the past 30 years tells us about how stock investing works. We all need to be united in getting Bogle and other leaders in this field to publicly acknowledge that Buy-and-Hold has failed and that it is time to move on.

The turmoil we have seen on the boards is not the result of me telling the truth about what the academic research says. That is a wonderful thing. I need to be sure to never, never, never stop doing that. The turmoil has been caused by the failure of the Buy-and-Holders to say The Three Magic Words.

I have done everything I can think of to encourage them to take this step. I need help. I need you doing what you can do. I need Bogle’s help. I need Bernstein’s help. I need Obama’s help and Romney’s help. I need the New York Times writing all this up on the front page. I need my fellow bloggers uniting in an effort to open every blog on the internet to honest discussion of these issues.

When we get there, there is no more turmoil. There is no down side to learning the realities of stock investing. There is no down side to bringing the economic crisis to an end. There is no down side to reducing the risk of stock investing by 70 percent. The shift from Buy-and-Hold to Valuation-Informed Indexing is a win/win/win/win/win.

All the turmoil comes from the failure of the Buy-and-Holders to acknowledge the mistake they made. I cannot do this for them. I can advise. I can encourage. I can implore. But I cannot put on a John Bogle mask and say the words he needs to say and have that act achieve the effect we need to achieve here. I need Bogle’s help. I need your help in securing Bogle’s help.

Please help, What.

I of course wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors in any event. Take care, old friend.

Rob

“I Only Hope that the Day Will Soon Come When Old Saint Jack Will be Working Beside Me”

by

One of the Goons recently asked me if I “hated” John Bogle. Set forth below are the words of my response:

Old Saint Jack is the second most important investing analyst in history (I place Robert Shiller in the top spot).Valuation-Informed Indexing reduces the risk of stock investing by 70 percent and there obviously would be no Valuation-Informed Indexing if there were no indexing. Guess who has done more than any human being alive to promote indexing over the past 35 years?

John Bogle will go down in history as a Hero to the Middle Class for what he has taught us all about how stock investing works in the real world. I will see to it.

But I won’t lie about his association with Mel Linduaer, Yip. I shouldn’t have to. Old Saint Jack is a grown-up. He knows the rules of civil human behavior. He’s been around long enough to know that people in positions of responsibility don’t associate with the sorts of people who put up posts in “defense” of a Mel Lindauer.

I will do everything in my power to see that John Bogle’s important and powerful investing insights receive the credit they merit in days to come. I only hope that the day will soon come when Old Saint Jack will be working beside me instead of cowering in fear over what Mel Linduaer might say about him if he dares to say clearly and firmly and plainly what he knows about the message of the last 30 years of academic research.

I love John Bogle, Yip. I only wish that John Bogle loved John Bogle half as much as Rob Bennett loves John Bogle.

Rob

“I Am Hated by Many Buy-and-Holders for the Same Reason That John Bogle Was Hated by the Pre-Indexers”

by

Set forth below is the text of a post that I put forward Wednesday at the Goon Central board:

The entire benefit of free speech is that it lets us become exposed to views that the majority views as foolish, Drip Guy.Any idea supported by the majority does not need free speech protections. Popular ideas will always be heard.

The purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular ideas. Those ideas need protection. Those ideas can lead to great things. But they first must be heard.

The price of free speech is that you have to be exposed to dumb stuff. There is no other way to insure that the good stuff will eventually gain a following.

Shut down the stuff that is perceived by the majority as dumb and you cut yourself off from all growth. A society that permits expression only of majority viewpoints stagnates and eventually dies.

Yes, it hurts the Buy-and-Holders to hear what I have to say about their strategy. I get that loud and clear. I want to see them hurt. That’s how we learn. Suffering a little hurt in the present can help you avoid a great deal of hurt down the road.

I like the Buy-and-Holders and I respect the Buy-and-Holders and I consider the Buy-and-Holders my friends. That’s why I show them the respect of believing that they can take criticism and overcome the hurt that comes with it.

I believe in the Buy-and-Holders. I have confidence in the intelligence and good will of the Buy-and-Holders. I have more belief and confidence in the Buy-and-Holders than you do, Drip Guy.

You say you believe in Buy-and-Hold. Your actions don’t back up the words. I don’t have any confidence in the first draft effort of the Buy-and-Holders. But my actions show huge confidence in the long-term Buy-and-Hold project of using academic research to learn the realities of stock investing.

I am what the Buy-and-Holders were in the 1960s and 1970s. I am hated by many Buy-and-Holders for the same reason that John Bogle was hated by the pre-indexers. Bogle upset the applecart and the people who profited from the applecart didn’t want to see it upset. We are all better off today because of Bogle’s determination and we will all be better off on a day not too far in the future because of my determination.

Buy-and-Hold is today all about Get Rich Quick. But that wasn’t the original idea. The original idea was to be all about research. I am in my soul 10 times the Buy-and-Holder that Mel Lindauer is. I am the guy taking Bogle’s ideas to a better place so that he can achieve his original vision. Bogle didn’t start out pushing GRQ.

Rob

“Bogle Would Love to Be Able to Start Over and to Advocate Valuation-Informed Indexing Rather Than Buy-and-Hold”

by

Set forth below are some words that I posted in a comment to the Goon Central board last Thursday:

Do you think I’m in it for the money? OR the other ‘Goons”

I certainly don’t think you are in it for the money, Drip Guy. I don’t think Greaney is. I don’t think Lindauer is.

I don’t think Bogle advocates Buy-and-Hold for money reasons. I think he advocates it because he believes in it.

But I certainly think that money considerations have played a big role in the 30-year cover-up of the academic research showing that Buy-and-Hold can never work in the long term.

I think Bogle and lots of others would love to be able to start over and to advocate Valuation-Informed Indexing rather than Buy-and-Hold. But they are afraid of the trillions of dollars in legal liabilities they have taken on by continuing to advocate Buy-and-Hold for 30 years after research was published showing that it can never work. I believe that they painted themselves into a corner and are now feeling desperately trapped.

I see it as my job to help them and to help us all achieve the transition we need to make. The biggest obstacle I face is the lack of support I get from people like Bogle. Bogle could turn this thing around with one speech that he arranged to have written up on the front page of the New York Times. Putting it off doesn’t make it easier. Putting it off makes it harder.

Money is a big part of the problem there. Money considerations are one of the primary things holding us back. Another is pride. Another is genuine ignorance. Another is complacency. There’s more than one thing holding us back. But, yes, I am certain that money is a big factor here.

Rob