Comments on The Active versus Passive DecisionTypePad2010-08-30T17:47:11ZNAhttps://www.freemoneyfinance.com/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2010/09/the-active-versus-passive-decision/comments/atom.xml/FMF commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4555ec7970b2010-09-17T23:55:55Z2010-09-17T23:55:55ZFMFhttp://www.freemoneyfinance.comWhile I'd love to get to 800 comments on a post, this conversation is going nowhere. I'm cutting off the...<p>While I'd love to get to 800 comments on a post, this conversation is going nowhere. I'm cutting off the comments at this point.</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e2013487749b7f970c2010-09-17T23:41:36Z2010-09-17T23:41:36ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comI've asked you to leave, Carlyle. Rob<p>I've asked you to leave, Carlyle.</p>
<p>Rob</p>Old Historian commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4554a1c970b2010-09-17T23:36:43Z2010-09-17T23:36:43ZOld HistorianMaybe Mr. Bennett was so tired from reading his own voluminous wave of words, and so did not quite have...<p>Maybe Mr. Bennett was so tired from reading his own voluminous wave of words, and so did not quite have enough energy to work his way to reading the end of Mr. Schelenker's commentary. The end, Rob, is where he says:</p>
<p>"But then the late 1990s happened and it all went to hell ['it' being his imputed VII timing model's supposed superiority over B&H). B&H turned out to be a huge winner in the late 1990s. Tie it together with widespread acceptance of modern portfolio theory and efficient markets - and no looking too far back because really old history is probably less relevant - and B&H is obviously the way to go. "</p>
<p>If you are *really* tired, Rob, just read the last six words.</p>Old Historian commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134877492fd970c2010-09-17T23:32:42Z2010-09-17T23:32:42ZOld HistorianYes, Rob, Schlenker was correct: "VII was more complex. Hocus is a bit scattered, so it's hard to distill an...<p>Yes, Rob, Schlenker was correct: </p>
<p>"VII was more complex. Hocus is a bit scattered, so it's hard to distill an algorithm from his verbiage. In the end, I settled for as good an approximation as I could manage for what he was suggesting. (He's revised the strategy many times, he contradicts himself over and over, it's very data mined, I take it all with a grain of salt.)"</p>
<p>In other words, he had to both infer what you meant by your VII, then set up the conditions and test it himself. </p>
<p>Question: Are you following your proposed "VII strategy" yourself? If so, please, give the readers the particulars! Nothing serves to illustrate better than a good example!</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e2013487748755970c2010-09-17T23:20:20Z2010-09-17T23:20:20ZCarlyle"It's lies from top to bottom, Carlyle." Yes I know, Mr. Bennett. Selectively editing bits of the words of others...<p>"It's lies from top to bottom, Carlyle."</p>
<p>Yes I know, Mr. Bennett. Selectively editing bits of the words of others and outright misprepresentations and mischaracterizations of the words of others is a long standing custom of yours.</p>
<p>"I'm looking forward to some fine discussions with a lot of good and smart and generous-spirited people."</p>
<p>People who hang on your every word and never are so unkind as to ask you to explain your S&P 500 Index market-timing strategy in enough detail for it to be actually used or insist that you provide details of how it performed against alternative buy-hold-rebalance strategies? And who never disgree with you and therefor become despised as "sewer rats?" Good luck, Mr. Bennett!</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4552f54970b2010-09-17T23:07:09Z2010-09-17T23:07:09ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"here's the link that shows how you mischaracterized the words of others;" It's lies from top to bottom, Carlyle. In...<p>"here's the link that shows how you mischaracterized the words of others;"</p>
<p>It's lies from top to bottom, Carlyle.</p>
<p>In some cases you terrorized community members and they were willing to say things they did not believe in response to the pressure. In other cases you just put words in their mouth that they never said. Neither is acceptable here.</p>
<p>This is why communities of decent and reasonable people must take action when internet sewer rats try to participate in our discussions.</p>
<p>You need to go, Carlyle Sewer Rat. Please take all your internet predator friends with you wherever it is you scurry off to.</p>
<p>And please let me be the first to say -- Good Riddance!</p>
<p>When you and the other sewer rats leave the premises, that's when the real fireworks (the good kind!) begin!</p>
<p>I'm looking forward to some fine discussions with a lot of good and smart and generous-spirited people. I'm looking forward to learning about investing (and maybe throwing in a thought of my own now and again if I happen to come up with something that seems like it might be worthy of sharing with my friends).</p>
<p>Peace!</p>
<p>Rob</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e2013487746ab4970c2010-09-17T22:54:00Z2010-09-17T22:54:00ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"I prefer a self directed "Buy and Manage" approach." I apologize, Travis. I am grateful to you for clearing that...<p>"I prefer a self directed "Buy and Manage" approach."</p>
<p>I apologize, Travis.</p>
<p>I am grateful to you for clearing that up.</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e2013487746a2b970c2010-09-17T22:53:16Z2010-09-17T22:53:16ZCarlyle"Here's the URL for the article at my site that offers brief comments by 101 community members who have expressed...<p>"Here's the URL for the article at my site that offers brief comments by 101 community members who have expressed a desire that honest posting on SWRs and many other important investment-related topics be permitted at all investing boards and blogs."</p>
<p>Uh, Rob, we've already been down that road. Did you forget already? Once again, here's the link that shows how you mischaracterized the words of others;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1189390571/4#4" rel="nofollow">http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1189390571/4#4</a></p>
<p>The reason you've been banned at so many blogs and boards is clearly shown by your behavior here in this comments thread.</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4551ba9970b2010-09-17T22:52:44Z2010-09-17T22:52:44ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comHere's my bio: http://knol.google.com/k/rob-bennett/rob-bennett/1y5zzbysw7pgd/4# Here are a few comments by big names in the field re my investing insights: Michael...<p>Here's my bio:</p>
<p><a href="http://knol.google.com/k/rob-bennett/rob-bennett/1y5zzbysw7pgd/4#" rel="nofollow">http://knol.google.com/k/rob-bennett/rob-bennett/1y5zzbysw7pgd/4#</a></p>
<p>Here are a few comments by big names in the field re my investing insights:</p>
<p>Michael Harr, founder of Walden Advisors, has described Valuation-Informed Indexing as "a very solid approach to investing." </p>
<p>Bill Schultheis, author of The New Coffeehouse Portfolio, exclaimed upon discovery of the investing materials available at www.PassionSaving.com: "Holy Toledo! This is great stuff!" </p>
<p>Carl Richards, owner of Clearwater Asset Management, wrote: "I have read everything I can about Valuation-Informed Indexing, and I agree with you that Buy-and-Hold Passive Investing is extremely problematic.... I think what you are doing has huge value."</p>
<p>You can of course read many, many, many more such comments by going to the home page of my "A Rich Life" blog.</p>
<p>I now have three weekly columns running at three different web sites, all exploring the implications of the insights I have developed with thousands of fine and generous community members during the first eight years of The Great Safe Withdrawal Rate Debate.</p>
<p>Even John Bogle himself acknowledges that Valuation-Informed Indexing can work:</p>
<p><a href="http://arichlife.passionsaving.com/2009/07/28/bogle-says-valuation-informed-indexing-can-work/" rel="nofollow">http://arichlife.passionsaving.com/2009/07/28/bogle-says-valuation-informed-indexing-can-work/</a></p>
<p>Numerous big-name experts have in recent years acknowledged the errors in the Old School SWR stidies. Larry Swedroe calls them "Garbage-in/Garbage-Out Research." Bill Bernstein says that anyone giving thought to using one of those studies to plan a retirement would be well-advised to "FuhGedDaBouDit!" My friends at the Motley Fool board learned of the errors in the Old School studies in a post that I put to that board on May 13, 2002, years before these experts spoke up (and none of the studies has been corrected to this day).</p>
<p>Rob</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4550a76970b2010-09-17T22:39:30Z2010-09-17T22:39:30ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comHere's the URL for the article at my site that offers brief comments by 101 community members who have expressed...<p>Here's the URL for the article at my site that offers brief comments by 101 community members who have expressed a desire that honest posting on SWRs and many other important investment-related topics be permitted at all investing boards and blogs. These 101 comments are of course only a tiny sample of the total number of such comments that have been put forward by the thousands of community members who would like to be able to participate in our discussions without being required to give up their personal integrity as a precondition:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.passionsaving.com/investing-discussion-boards.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.passionsaving.com/investing-discussion-boards.html</a></p>
<p>Rob</p>Trader Travis commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e2013487745c1b970c2010-09-17T22:37:44Z2010-09-17T22:37:44ZTrader Travishttp://www.learn-stock-options-trading.com/@ Rob I do NOT believe in buy and hold and I explained so here: http://www.learn-stock-options-trading.com/how-i-doubled-my-401k-account.html (FMF remove that link...<p>@ Rob</p>
<p>I do NOT believe in buy and hold and I explained so here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.learn-stock-options-trading.com/how-i-doubled-my-401k-account.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.learn-stock-options-trading.com/how-i-doubled-my-401k-account.html</a></p>
<p>(FMF remove that link it that was inappropriate)</p>
<p>Buy and hold "may" work for some, but like any investment path it has its flaws.</p>
<p>William J O'neal (the founder of Investors Business Daily) talked about how the Buy and Hold concept came to be. According to him it originated from the mutual fund industry.</p>
<p>What people need to think about is that the source of the buy and hold promotions are "usually" the ones collecting the commissions off of your regular contributions.</p>
<p>I prefer a self directed "Buy and Manage" approach.</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f454fe90970b2010-09-17T22:27:22Z2010-09-17T22:27:22ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"I've been a lurker at this site for quite a while. No longer. Bennett has removed any value and replaced...<p>"I've been a lurker at this site for quite a while. No longer. Bennett has removed any value and replaced it with endless nastiness and ignorance. Think I'll drift over to someplace rational, where Rob Bennett is banned, like the Bogleheads."</p>
<p>I'd be interested to hear what the reasonable Buy-and-Holders think of these words.</p>
<p>My take is that there is zero constructive intent here. My take is that the intent here is to cause trouble. Does that not sound right?</p>
<p>My recollection is that there was a poster named "DocWal" at the Vanguard Diehards site. My guess is that what is going on here is that this poster is friends with some of the internet sewer rats and he is worried that lawsuits are going to be brought against them if they are exposed and he is afraid that, if honest posting is permitted here, they will be exposed. So he is doing what he can to see that that doesn't happen.</p>
<p>Do you see how this cancer spreads?</p>
<p>It started with one fellow (John Greaney) who got an important number wrong in a retirement study posted at his web site and who was not man enough to acknowledge the error. Hundreds of people at Motley Fool asked that Greaney permit honest posting and he said "no dice." </p>
<p>So, then, when those people left Motley Fool to start up boards where they COULD post honestly, Greaney felt that he had to have his Goon Squad follow them and destroy those sites too. It wouldn't look good to have ANY site on the internet where people knew that his study got the numbers wrong, right?</p>
<p>And then Mel Lindauer, who had long been using threats of physical violence at the Vanguard Diehards board to keep people in line there, felt a kinship to Greaney and he destroyed the entire board there rather than permit honest posting on SWRs (again hundreds expressed a desire that honest posting be permitted there).</p>
<p>And now we are in a situation where friends of Linddauer and Greaney need to insure that honest posting is forever prohibited at the entire Personal Finance Blogosphere. So more and more people who got into blogging just because they enjoyed it and wanted to be able to help people are putting themselves at financial liability essentially for the benefit of this one fellow who couldn't bring himself to admit getting a number wrong in a retirement study.</p>
<p>Make sense?</p>
<p>It does not make sense to me. It's insane! I'm not overstating it. This is insane!</p>
<p>I hope there are responsible people here who will speak out. So many have already been hurt in very serious ways and so many more are being hurt each day this continues. I think it would be fair to say that there would not be one person (including the Goons themselves!) who not feel better to see us put all this ugliness behind us and get back to the fun of discussing personal finance stuff as friends learning together.</p>
<p>The Goons are not capable of seeing what is in their own best interests. There are times when reasonable people need to step forward and take action. I have long experience with these people. All bullies are cowards. Each time a site owner shows even a tiny bit of backbone, they go running for the hills. What you never, never, never want to do is to suggest that you are willing to tolerate them. They are over at that sewer rate sit as we speak yucking it up about how they have ruined another fine blog.</p>
<p>I cannot in good conscience not say anything about people causing such human misery. I did not get into this field to be involved in hurting so many people and in such a horrible, twisted way. You want to talk about investing stuff, I am your guy. You'll go the sewage route without me. Not my thing. Not even close.</p>
<p>No can do. I can't go for that.</p>
<p>I'm afraid that it's just not my particular cup of tea.</p>
<p>Rob</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f454e3b7970b2010-09-17T21:59:48Z2010-09-17T21:59:48ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"Most of the financial independent people I know (including myself) follow a very boring, simple, yet effective plan. But it...<p>"Most of the financial independent people I know (including myself) follow a very boring, simple, yet effective plan. But it works!"</p>
<p>I am grateful to you for sharing your thoughts, Travis.</p>
<p>If your approach works, you should of course stick with it. I of course wish you the very best of luck with it and I hope we can be friends while following different investment strategies.</p>
<p>Do you understand that there are millions of middle-class people today who are finding that Buy-and-Hold does not work FOR THEM? Is there any good reason why those people should not be permitted to explore something different in peace?</p>
<p>That's the question on the table here. The question is -- Should people seeking to learn about something different be permitted to learn about new ideas without being harassed by Buy-and-Hold dogmatics? I am not saying that you are a dogmatic. But I certainly think it would be fair to say that the people at the site linked to above are dogmatic in the extreme. I wish that we could get the non-dogmatic Buy-and-Holders to speak up in opposition (and, frankly, in revulsion) when they see that sort of thing. That intense dogmatism is giving Buy-and-Hold a bad name among a lot of people who in earlier days felt a lot of affection and respect for Buy-and-Holders but who have found the ugliness put forward by this small group of extreme dogmatics more than a little hard to stomach.</p>
<p>We all want the same things, Travis. You have found what you are looking for and that is of course great. I have conversed with thousands of people who either are sure that they have not yet found what they want or who are not sure one way or the other. I think those people matter too. I have of course have zero problem with anyone who says that Buy-and-Hold is the answer FOR HIM. I have a big problem with this group that says that Buy-and-Hold must be the answer for every single person and that no one should be permitted even to ask questions about it anywhere on the internet.</p>
<p>I have had these people follow me to every board and to every blog at which I have posted for over eight years now. I have seen them burn to the ground half a dozen wonderful board communities because the owners of those communities expressed an intent to permit honest posting at them. These people have defamed me thousands upon thousands of times. When I am interviewd in the press, they call up the editors of the reporters and tell lies about me in the hope of getting the reporters in trouble. When sites link to me, they launch smear campaigns against the owners as their way of punishing those who have "crossed" them. They have threatened to kill my wife and children on numerous occasions.</p>
<p>Do you really see nothing wrong with any of that? If there were people speaking up in support of Valuation-Informed Indexing and engaging in these sorts of tactics, I would be trying to disassociate myself from them in every possible way. I would be humiliated to have anyone think that I was okay with that sort of behavior. It mystifies me that there are a large number of Buy-and-Holders who appear to me to be perfectly reasonable people in every respect except that on the one issue of Buy-and-Hold they seem to not see any problem with the most abusive behavior that has ever been practiced by human beings on Planet Earth. Huh?</p>
<p>That's where I am coming from when I object to the group that I call "internet sewer rats". I have seen thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives destroyed by these people and I am not able to imagine any reason why normal people would want them in a board community. They add large heapings of anger and hate and contempt and provide zero positive or constructive or life-affirming input.</p>
<p>We are talking about investing, right? Is this sort of behavior really appropriate in discussions of investing? I do not see how. I do not get this even a tiny bit. I think that there are a good number of people in this community who would like the discussion threads to relate to the topics explored at the site. Why not demand that FMF take action against this group of extreme haters posting in the name of Buy-and-Hold but in reality bringing great discredit upon it?</p>
<p>Rob</p>docwal commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f454de67970b2010-09-17T21:54:44Z2010-09-17T21:54:44Zdocwal"a nutshell" Ain't that the truth. This forum has obviously been taken over by a nut, who won't/can't answer questions...<p>"a nutshell"</p>
<p>Ain't that the truth. This forum has obviously been taken over by a nut, who won't/can't answer questions about his market timing scheme and who immediately resorts to insults, ad hominem attacks, and blatant falsehood.</p>
<p>I've been a lurker at this site for quite a while. No longer. Bennett has removed any value and replaced it with endless nastiness and ignorance. Think I'll drift over to someplace rational, where Rob Bennett is banned, like the Bogleheads.</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f454b6ac970b2010-09-17T21:28:14Z2010-09-17T21:28:14ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comMany people start out skeptical about Valuation-Informed Indexing. The reason why is that they have had it drilled into their...<p>Many people start out skeptical about Valuation-Informed Indexing. The reason why is that they have had it drilled into their heads that market timing is a bad thing. The reality is that one form of market timing (short-term timing) is indeed a very, very bad thing and the other form of timing (long-term timing) is a very, very good thing, a thing that is in fact REQUIRED of any investor hoping to have any reasonable chance of long-term investing success.</p>
<p>The key to figuring out all the "controversy" here is coming to understand why long-term timing is so very different from short-term timing.</p>
<p>Short-term timers are doomed. The Buy-and-Holders advanced the ball in a huge way by warning us about short-term timing. We all should be grateful to them for this. There is no dispute over this whatsoever. </p>
<p>Long-term timing is absolutely required for long-term investing success. This is the controversial part of my message.</p>
<p>To understand why long-term timing is so critical, you need to appreciate WHY short-term timing never works. The reason why short-term timing does not work is that in the short-term stock prices are determined almost entirely by investor emotion. Emotion is unpredictable. All that short-term timers are doing is guessing. There's not much hope with that. </p>
<p>Long-term timing is NOT guessing. In the long-term, stock prices are set not by investor emotion but by the economic realities. The economic realities are HIGHLY predictable. There's nothing even a little bit hard about long-term timing. There's no guessing involved. It always works and it always must work (so long as the strategies are employed in reasonable ways, of course). And it adds greatly to your return while greatly diminishing your risk.</p>
<p>What you need to know to engage in effective long-term timing is the P/E10 (that's the price of the index over the average of the past 10 years of earnings) level of the market on the day you purchase the index. Say that it is 44, as it was in January 2000. If you run a regression analysis to see what the 10-year return is likely to be starting from that valuation level, you find out that the most likely annualized 10-year return is a negative 1 percent real. TIPS were paying 4 percent real at the time. So you gain 5 points real of higher return for each dollar you move from stocks to TIPS. What's not to like?</p>
<p>It's not always that easy, of course. January 2000 was the worst time to buy stocks in the history of the market. But if you happen to be trying to make an allocation choice at a time when the case is not so clear between stocks and TIPS, you can always go with a Buy-and-Hold default. Everyone is free to use VII only when the benefits are absolutely compelling and to take a pass at all other times. That won't give you the greatest benefit possible but it will let you retire many years sooner than you would if you always followed Buy-and-Hold. So, again, what's not to like?</p>
<p>I need to state a few caveats. First, this does NOT work in the short-term. Forget it. It is not intended to work in the short-term. It can take as long as 10 years for this to work. If you are not willing to wait 10 years, this is not for you. This is strictly a long-term strategy.</p>
<p>Second, while we can predict 10-year returns to a statistically significant extent, we cannot predict 10-year returns with precision. What we can do is to identify a range of possible returns and assign probabilities to each point on the spectrum. That provides a huge edge over Buy-and-Hold. But we cannot do more than that. At 20 years, we can provide a good bit more precision. At five years, we cannot provide statistically significant predictions.</p>
<p>That's the deal, in a nutshell.</p>
<p>Rob</p>Trader Travis commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e201348773f618970c2010-09-17T21:15:00Z2010-09-17T21:15:00ZTrader Travishttp://www.learn-stock-options-trading.com/Wow...I was going to link to this until I read all the comments. FMF, you're a good one and one...<p>Wow...I was going to link to this until I read all the comments.</p>
<p>FMF, you're a good one and one with much wisdom. I don't know how you were able to calmly handle that discussion.</p>
<p>Those discussions in the comment section are part of the reason why investing is so complicated. At some point in our lives we have to ask ourselves, "Do I want to feel smart, or do I want to make money."</p>
<p>Most of the financial independent people I know (including myself) follow a very boring, simple, yet effective plan. But it works!</p>
<p>I'd rather be rich and boring, then look smart and be broke. A simple ETF (index) plan sprinkled with covered calls works for me. Yeah it's simple and boring, but it works.</p>
<p>I haven't found investing to be all that hard. What I have found to be hard is tuning out all the noise!</p>
<p>P.S. Someone needs to put up or shut up (if the shoe fits where it).</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f454a0a8970b2010-09-17T21:10:06Z2010-09-17T21:10:06ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comThanks for stepping in, Bill. I agree with you about Apex. It would be a huge help to have him...<p>Thanks for stepping in, Bill. I agree with you about Apex. It would be a huge help to have him participating. I would also like to see FMF participating. And any others who are listening in and have some interest in exploring these matters.</p>
<p>The question that was asked shows a lot of confusion. I mean no criticism of the person who put it forward by saying this. There has been a HUGE amount of confusion in all of the discussions of these issues and it is obviously hard for people new to this to figure out what is going on. This is why I am making an effort to see if we can get responsible people like yourself to step forward and serve as moderators. We want to make some sense of this stuff. Our retirements are at stake.</p>
<p>The question had to do with the returns obtained through Valuation-Informed Indexing vs. the returns obtained through Buy-and-Hold. The quickest way that I know of to get a grasp of what the historical data says is to look at the graphic at the URL below. It was prepared by Norbert Schlenker, who is a financial planner and part-owner of the a Canadian investing forum. If you look at the opening words of the thread linked to, you will see that Norbert is by no stretch of the imagination a supporter of mine (he calls me a "troll" and has banned me from his forum). But he reports the numbers accurately in his graphic and that is what counts for our purposes here.</p>
<p>Here is the URL:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.financialwebring.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106998" rel="nofollow">http://www.financialwebring.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106998</a></p>
<p>Schlenker says: "The evidence is pretty incontrovertible. Valuation-Informed Indexing, i.e. market timing, is everywhere superior to B&H over ten year periods." He notes one exception that applied at the time he prepared the graphic -- the late 1990s. The crash changed that. Today it is correct to say that there has never yet in the historical record been a time when VII did not out-perform Buy-and-Hold for the long-term investor.</p>
<p>I am going to explain why that will always remain true in a follow-up post.</p>
<p>Rob</p>BillV commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4547e20970b2010-09-17T20:40:26Z2010-09-17T20:40:26ZBillVCould we get past the name calling and nasty remarks? Eugene, would you repeat the main qx's you have for...<p>Could we get past the name calling and nasty remarks?</p>
<p>Eugene, would you repeat the main qx's you have for Rob? Just the questions, no sarcasm nor snark.</p>
<p>Rob, why wait for an invitation to guest post? Write the post and put up here as though you had been invited. In fact you have been.</p>
<p>I hope neither of you decides to patronize me by saying " Well read my posts above." If you take a look at the chain of exchanges like an outsiderlike me has a difficult time getting past the mutual sniping. If you're tired of this thread, can't say that I blame you. BTW:</p>
<p>I an more familiar with Apex's postings than Eugene's or Rob's. I find it noteworthy that he has dropped out of the thread. And he ususaly makes good points.</p>
<p>Myself, I have been a buy and hold investor and it served me well. For me the unspoken part of buy and hold has been "but pay attention". Even the rottiesirre(SP?) pitchman (yes I know his name but no advertizing ) says He doesn't really mean " set it and forget it". </p>
<p>I moved my stock fund money to safety a year before the drop. I just felt that too many folks so no end to the upside.<br />
And as another poster here says often, I ahd all the money I needed from these accounts.</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e201348773ae2a970c2010-09-17T20:23:10Z2010-09-17T20:23:10ZCarlyleSo Mr. Bennett, I gather once again you are unable or unwilling to give enough details re: your S&P 500...<p>So Mr. Bennett, I gather once again you are unable or unwilling to give enough details re: your S&P 500 Index market-timing strategy for someone to actually use it to for the S&P 500 Index investing purposes. And I gather you are unable or unwilling to show how it would have performed against alternative buy-hold-rebalance strategies. Sorry that these difficult questions have upset you so. But it's all about learning. And I believe the readers of FMF have learned a great deal about Rob "Hocus" Bennett in these posts.</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4545cc6970b2010-09-17T20:17:23Z2010-09-17T20:17:23ZCarlyle"The other side of the story is that, if you asked me on the morning of May 13, 2002, whether...<p>"The other side of the story is that, if you asked me on the morning of May 13, 2002, whether Greaney could have stretched this out for over eight years, I would have put the odds at 1 in 10 million.</p>
<p>So what do I know?"</p>
<p>John Greaney isn't spending 10 hours a day 6 days a week trolling online personal finance boards and blogs. That would be the Bat$hit Crazy Rob "Hocus" Bennett.<br />
</p>Old Historian commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f454554e970b2010-09-17T20:15:21Z2010-09-17T20:15:21ZOld HistorianI find it startling that a man who hoped to make a full-time occupation out of guiding others in their...<p>I find it startling that a man who hoped to make a full-time occupation out of guiding others in their investment decisions could be so painfully unaware of owning such a bizarre set of shockingly apparent shortcomings, that would alert even the most naive investor that this is a quack, and someone to steer well clear of:</p>
<p>INABILITY OR UNWILLINGNESS TO BE HONEST:<br />
Rob Bennett: "I have referred to you guys as "internet predators."... I used to call you "Defenders of the Conventional Methodology."</p>
<p>While sometimes 'defenders of convention' are eventually found to have been wrong, and new orthodoxies established (to sometimes be overturned themselves and so on), in no case can 'defenders of orthodoxy' today be equated to 'internet predators' -- a phrase so fraught with horrific overtones in today's parlance, as to be a virtual scarlet letter, were the appellation to be taken seriously. Rob does not accidentally use such bombast. He willfully uses such poison pen words SPECIFICALLY with intent to annoy and damage, and with reckless disregard for the truth.</p>
<p>INABILITY OR UNWILLINGNESS TO ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION:<br />
Bennett: "... Market Timing Scheme -- Negative 506 percent.... Coffeehouse Port -- Positive 11,432..."</p>
<p>INNUMERACY:<br />
He cannot work through the functions of his own calculator at his own site. The underpinnings were in fact prior work, cribbed from an internet retirement site by a now-deceased pensioner, who was at best an amateur in the field himself, and unable to attract even the smallest of adherents, and given to Rob upon that government retiree's death. Bennett has publicly admitted to being unable to balance his checkbook.</p>
<p>FINANCIAL ILLITERACY: <br />
Any dialog with Bennett quickly plumbs the shallow depths of his knowledge of financial science, and he frequently ridicules such staples as the Sharpe Ratio and other well established financial terms and principles. </p>
<p>ANTI-SOCIAL DISPOSITION:<br />
Bennett: "Sewer rats" (x5). Every conversation with Rob that for even a moment veers away from a spotlight on him and his supposedly revolutionary ideas, is met with scorn, the likes of which would be unseemly in a bar fight, much less from someone hoping to become a notable in a complex field.</p>
<p>LACK OF WRITING SKILLS:<br />
Bennett's 'work' on this thread alone serves to fully illustrate the point. rob can spend more words to say less than any ten bloggers. While he claims to have been both a reporter and a journalist in past professional capacities, it is almost unimaginable, and short of any evidence of that professional work product (never forthcoming from Bennett), one would leave his site and his comments assuming he had never taken so much as a single writing course in junior college, much less served in any professional capacity.</p>
<p>LACK OF PERSONAL EXAMPLE OR COGENT MODEL:<br />
Early, Rob seemed to want to make his mark by coming up with an unconventional approach (originally to saving) and then applying it to his own situation, then sharing observations and outcomes. This paradigm was initially received with encouragement, but since that initial foray into first-person journalism, leavened with actual results from his life, Rob has fallen into claiming that what everyone else does is wrong, but without being able to articulate, either by thesis or example, on what a better approach would look like. This, combined with all the other shortcomings above, and more, have led Rob to the apparently very unsatisfying position of trolling internet chat boards all day, and claiming some vast conspiracy, and not his own failings, are accountable for his sad situation.</p>
<p>I could go on and on... but what's the point: It's depressing, and will have no net impact on Rob's chosen course.</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e2013487732638970c2010-09-17T18:53:05Z2010-09-17T18:53:05ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"1) What are the returns for your S&P 500 Index market-timing system versus the Coffeehouse Portfolio for the years 1991-2009?"...<p>"1) What are the returns for your S&P 500 Index market-timing system versus the Coffeehouse Portfolio for the years 1991-2009?"</p>
<p>Market Timing Scheme -- Negative 506 percent</p>
<p>Coffeehouse Port -- Positive 11,432</p>
<p>"2) What are the returns for your S&P 500 Index market-timing system versus Vanguard's Wellington Fund since its inception (or for the past 10, 20 or 30 years periods)?"</p>
<p>Market Timing Scheme -- Negative 506</p>
<p>Wellington -- Positive 16,609</p>
<p>Can you please now try to sleep easy tonight, Carlyle?</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f453b221970b2010-09-17T18:32:40Z2010-09-17T18:32:40ZCarlyle"There's a place in this world for people who speak Forbidden Truths." I'm not interested in Forbidden Truths. I'm interested...<p>"There's a place in this world for people who speak Forbidden Truths."</p>
<p>I'm not interested in Forbidden Truths. I'm interested in;</p>
<p>1) What are the returns for your S&P 500 Index market-timing system versus the Coffeehouse Portfolio for the years 1991-2009?</p>
<p>2) What are the returns for your S&P 500 Index market-timing system versus Vanguard's Wellington Fund since its inception (or for the past 10, 20 or 30 years periods)?</p>
<p><br />
</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134877304d5970c2010-09-17T18:31:13Z2010-09-17T18:31:13ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"Afterwards Mr. Bogle would be "allowed" to ask Mr. Bennett questions." I think it would be fair to say based...<p>"Afterwards Mr. Bogle would be "allowed" to ask Mr. Bennett questions."</p>
<p>I think it would be fair to say based on this comment that I am winning.</p>
<p>The other side of the story is that, if you asked me on the morning of May 13, 2002, whether Greaney could have stretched this out for over eight years, I would have put the odds at 1 in 10 million.</p>
<p>So what do I know?</p>
<p>Rob</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e201348772dc9c970c2010-09-17T18:09:11Z2010-09-17T18:09:11ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"Rob "Hocus" Bennett, my hat's off to you; you ARE the preeminent troll in the world of personal finance discussion...<p>"Rob "Hocus" Bennett, my hat's off to you; you ARE the preeminent troll in the world of personal finance discussion boards and blogs!"</p>
<p>I wrote an opinion piece for the Daily Caller site re this "troll" business. It's called "Confessions of an Internet Troll":</p>
<p><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/02/confessions-of-an-internet-troll/" rel="nofollow">http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/02/confessions-of-an-internet-troll/</a></p>
<p>There's a place in this world for people who speak Forbidden Truths. Socrates was the most famous troll of his day, you know? </p>
<p>Say it Loud -- I'm an Internet Troll and I'm Proud!</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4538a6b970b2010-09-17T18:06:21Z2010-09-17T18:06:21ZCarlyle"It's a very. very different story at places where sewer rats like you are permitted to participate. I'll give one...<p>"It's a very. very different story at places where sewer rats like you are permitted to participate. I'll give one compelling example. John Bogle is a hero of mine. I learned that valuations affect long-term returns by reading John Bogle's book. There wouldn't be any Valuation-Informed Indexing if it were not for John Bogle's insights. I love the man. But I have now been placed in a position where, in order to be honest with my readers, I need to let them know that in recent years Bogle has participated in meetings of the Vanguard Diehards at which many of the sewer rats who put up posts in "defense' of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney were in attendance."</p>
<p>Those who don't follow the exploits of Bat$hit Crazy Rob "Hocus" Bennett will need a little background information to understand that passage. Morningstar's Vanguard Diehards (and now Bogleheads) have an annual (private) dinner meeting featuring John Bogle as the speaker of honor. </p>
<p>Back in 2007 Rob "Hocus" Bennett, who had recently brought his Hocomania Routine to Vanguard Diehard's in all its glory, demanded that he not only be invited to the gathering but he rather than Mr. Bogle should be the keynote speaker. Afterwards Mr. Bogle would be "allowed" to ask Mr. Bennett questions. Surprisingly, Mel Lindauer and the other Diehards not only objected to Rob's proposal but actually had the audacity to fail to invite Rob "Hocus" Bennett to join the festivities. </p>
<p>As you can see, Mr. Bennett still seethes over the slight these years later! Poor, poor Rob, life must be very difficult when the path to fame and fortune is blocked by so many "sewer rats" who ask you questions you don't want to answer!</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e201348772cfef970c2010-09-17T18:03:46Z2010-09-17T18:03:46ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"I thought those who disagreed with you or asked you questions you didn't want to answer were Goons? But now...<p>"I thought those who disagreed with you or asked you questions you didn't want to answer were Goons? But now we're sewer rats?"</p>
<p>There have also been times when I have referred to you guys as "internet predators."</p>
<p>Somedays I am more worked up than others, you know?</p>
<p>A long, long time ago I used to call you "Defenders of the Conventional Methodology."</p>
<p>Our days of Innocence!</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e201348772b183970c2010-09-17T17:46:49Z2010-09-17T17:46:49ZCarlyle"No can do, Carlyle Sewer Rat. I post honestly or I post not. Non-negotiable." So, I take it that means...<p>"No can do, Carlyle Sewer Rat.</p>
<p>I post honestly or I post not. </p>
<p>Non-negotiable."</p>
<p>So, I take it that means you don't intend to provide Free Money Finance readers any evidence to show how your S&P 500 Index market strategy performs in comparison to buy-hold-rebalance strategies? I guess you prefer to wow 'em with Hocomania!</p>
<p>"If FMF does his job and removes you and makes clear that no further posts by sewer rats will be permitted here, those of us with a sincere desire to learn about the subject matter of the board will have a wonderful time discussing every aspect of these questions in great depth."</p>
<p>I thought those who disagreed with you or asked you questions you didn't want to answer were Goons? But now we're sewer rats? Or do you have different categories for those who don't give you the appropriate amount of adulation for "all you've accomplished" in the field. Rob "Hocus" Bennett, my hat's off to you; you ARE the preeminent troll in the world of personal finance discussion boards and blogs!</p>Old Historian commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e201348772a2de970c2010-09-17T17:41:24Z2010-09-17T17:41:24ZOld Historian"Some of those quotes are accurate." No. Every single one of those quotes is 100% accurate, because unlike the way...<p>"Some of those quotes are accurate."</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Every single one of those quotes is 100% accurate, because unlike the way Mr. Bennett does business, the source for the information was provided in the form of a live link back to the original source material. </p>
<p>Unlike Mr. Bennett, I am prepared to back up my post, and to answer ANY and ALL objections he might have, if made with sufficient specificity as to be addressable.</p>
<p>That's a far better deal than he has ever given anyone else who tried to talk to him.</p>Old Historian commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e2013487729733970c2010-09-17T17:36:44Z2010-09-17T17:36:44ZOld Historian"sewer rat"..."the work I have done in this field"..."sewer rat"...."sewer rat"..."sewer rat"... So, I take it that's a firm "No"...<p>"sewer rat"..."the work I have done in this field"..."sewer rat"...."sewer rat"..."sewer rat"...</p>
<p>So, I take it that's a firm "No" from you to his quite reasonable request for you to provide a simple comparison in returns, eh?</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f45303b0970b2010-09-17T16:43:26Z2010-09-17T16:43:26ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"If you want to be taken seriously" Anyone who cares to spend five minutes learning the realities of the matter...<p>"If you want to be taken seriously"</p>
<p>Anyone who cares to spend five minutes learning the realities of the matter can go to the home page of my "A Rich Life" blog, scroll down to the "People Are Talking" section (on the left-hand side) and read what big-name experts in the field think about the work I have done in this field. I think it is fair to say that if you had ever accomplished 1/1000th of what I have in this field, you would not have spent the last eight years of your life destroying every blog and discussion board where the site owner is too cowardly to take action against sewer rats like you.</p>
<p>If FMF does his job and removes you and makes clear that no further posts by sewer rats will be permitted here, those of us with a sincere desire to learn about the subject matter of the board will have a wonderful time discussing every aspect of these questions in great depth. We will all learn a lot, we will all become fast friends, we will all walk away from the experience feeling better about ourselves, about stocks, about our fellow community members and about the world in general.</p>
<p>It's a very. very different story at places where sewer rats like you are permitted to participate. I'll give one compelling example. John Bogle is a hero of mine. I learned that valuations affect long-term returns by reading John Bogle's book. There wouldn't be any Valuation-Informed Indexing if it were not for John Bogle's insights. I love the man. But I have now been placed in a position where, in order to be honest with my readers, I need to let them know that in recent years Bogle has participated in meetings of the Vanguard Diehards at which many of the sewer rats who put up posts in "defense' of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney were in attendance.</p>
<p>How you do think that makes me feel? It makes me feel sick.</p>
<p>And now you do the same to FMF, who I have every reason to believe is in general a fine person who started his blog with the intent of doing good for people.</p>
<p>No can do, Carlyle Sewer Rat.</p>
<p>I post honestly or I post not. </p>
<p>Non-negotiable.</p>
<p>Deal with it, friend.</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f452e6d4970b2010-09-17T16:22:02Z2010-09-17T16:22:02ZCarlyleI'm curious, Mr. Bennett. You imply you need to be granted a "Guest Post" in order to explain how one...<p>I'm curious, Mr. Bennett. You imply you need to be granted a "Guest Post" in order to explain how one could possibly use your S&P 500 Index market-timing strategy. Are you saying the strategy is so complex that it requires more verbiage than the diatribe you posted above?</p>
<p>Let me refresh your memory of the two questions I put to you earlier;</p>
<p>1) What are the returns for your S&P 500 Index market-timing system versus the Coffeehouse Portfolio for the years 1991-2009?</p>
<p>2) What are the returns for your S&P 500 Index market-timing system versus Vanguard's Wellington Fund since its inception (or for the past 10, 20 or 30 years periods)?</p>
<p>I'll give you examples of how to answer such questions;<br />
<br />
For question number 1),</p>
<p><a href="http://www.coffeehouseinvestor.com/the-coffeehouse-rules/coffeehouse-returns/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coffeehouseinvestor.com/the-coffeehouse-rules/coffeehouse-returns/</a></p>
<p> ANNUALIZED <br />
RETURN <br />
<br />
1991 23.55% <br />
1992 9.57% <br />
1993 15.65% <br />
1994 -0.58% <br />
1995 22.90% <br />
1996 14.53% <br />
1997 17.95% <br />
1998 6.89% <br />
1999 8.30% <br />
2000 7.25% <br />
2001 1.88% <br />
2002 -5.56% <br />
2003 23.54% <br />
2004 13.80% <br />
2005 6.24% <br />
2006 15.15% <br />
2007 2.63% <br />
2008 -20.21% <br />
2009 20.26% <br />
<br />
<br />
19 YEARS 9.10% <br />
<br />
10 YEARS 5.74% <br />
<br />
5 YEARS 3.79% <br />
<br />
2 YEARS -2.04%</p>
<p>And for question number 2),</p>
<p><a href="https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0021&FundIntExt=INT#hist=tab%3A1a" rel="nofollow">https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0021&FundIntExt=INT#hist=tab%3A1a</a></p>
<p> Total Return <br />
2009 22.20% <br />
2008 –22.30% <br />
2007 8.34% <br />
2006 14.97% <br />
2005 6.82% <br />
2004 11.17% <br />
2003 20.75% <br />
2002 –6.90% <br />
2001 4.19% <br />
2000 10.40% <br />
1999 4.41% <br />
1998 12.06% <br />
1997 23.23% <br />
1996 16.19% <br />
1995 32.92%</p>
<p>See Mr. Bennett? If you want to be taken seriously it's high time you answer questions such as these. </p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f4525300970b2010-09-17T14:47:26Z2010-09-17T14:47:26ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comSome of those quotes are accurate. There are people who posted dishonestly in order to be given "permission" to post...<p>Some of those quotes are accurate. There are people who posted dishonestly in order to be given "permission" to post at the boards that have banned honest posting on investing. They shouldn't have to. Each of us should be permitted to post his or her honest views.</p>
<p>I have had numerous blog owners tell me that they would love to run my Guest Blog Entries, but that they fear what will be done to them if they do. Why do we need to have a blacklisting policy if Buy-and-Hold can be defended honestly? That's the root problem here.</p>
<p>I have written at my site that I will be filing lawsuits against the site owners and blog owners who participated in the blacklisting and against the posters who engaged in defamation and in efforts to destroy my business because I was the first person to report the SWR accurately. None of this should ever happen on discussion boards. People have seriously lost their grip when they allow this ugly, ugly stuff to continue for so long. For what constructive purpose?</p>
<p>Mike Piper, the owner of the Oblivious Investor blog, is one of the biggest advocates of Buy-and-Hold around. Yet even Mike (who has banned me from his site, by the way) told me that he found the idea of having to read about death threats and other acts of intimidation on investing boards sickening. That gets right to the heart of it.</p>
<p>Would a person of John Bogle's stature ever spend even five minutes on a board at which the sorts of interpret predators who have posted in "defense" of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney have posted had he gained his stature doing something other than promoting Buy-and-Hold? The question answers itself. People of integrity and intelligence simply do not behave this way.</p>
<p>There is going to come a day when honest posting on ALL investing topics is going to be permitted at every board and at every blog. Where is FMF going to be then? How is he going to explain his behavior today when millions of middle-class investors have learned that he not only promoted a Get Rich Quick scheme for many years but that he permitted links to the sorts of sewer sites that we see being linked to in this thread? I am FMF's biggest friend here. I am trying to pull him back to sanity before he does even more damage to his reputation.</p>
<p>I am going to continue doing that. I am going to continue extending the hand of friendship to FMF and to J.D. Roth and to Mike Piper and to John Bogle and to lots and lots of other Buy-and-Holders whom I consider friends. I am also going to continue to post honestly on safe withdrawal rates and on all other critically important investment-related topics. When the time comes when lots of people are asking lots of hard questions about these people, I am going to say words on both sides of the story, just telling the story as it happened. I hope that helps. But I have to say that, the longer this insanity goes on, the less confident I am that I am going to be able to offer much help to these people.</p>
<p>There are two possibilities. One is that Buy-and-Hold can be defended. I do not believe that but I certainly believe that FMF and lots of other Buy-and-Holders believe that. So they should be out defending it! They should NOT be associating with the internet predators in any way, shape or form. That takes us down, down, down. How could associating with internet predators possibly help their case? I mean, come on!</p>
<p>The other possibility is that Buy-and-Hold cannot be defended, that we should have all abandoned it 30 years ago, when the academic research first showed that there is precisely zero chance that it could ever work for the long-term investor. Those who understand that should of course be doing all they can to spread the word. They should of course be kind to the Buy-and-Holders, who for the most part are suffering from genuine confusion and genuine cognitive dissonance. But never should they consider for two seconds giving in to the pressure being imposed on them by the internet predators to post dishonestly. It's 100 percent insane that there is any "controversy" on this aspect of the question whatsoever.</p>
<p>The issue isn't going away. Widespread promotion of Get Rich Quick has brought our economy to its knees four times now and the only way we have recovered in the past is to acknowledge our mistakes and move forward together. Sooner or later, the pain that we have caused ourselves is going to force us to do that this time too. I will keep the hand of charity outstretched to all Buy-and-Holders of good will. That's not a time-sensitive offer. I've had that hand outstretched since the morning of May 13, 2002, and it remains outstretched today and it will remain outstretched eight years from today if this insanity lasts that long.</p>
<p>If there are responsible people who want to work together to bring this to a far better place than where it is today, I am your guy. Send me an e-mail and you will find me the easiest person in the world to work a deal with. If you plan to include a condition in that deal that I post dishonestly on SWRs, you would be better off spending your energies in some other endeavor. I think it would be fair to say that I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of any even halfway reasonable person that that ain't never, never, never, never gonna happen. Please give that one up! Please!</p>
<p>Heaven help all the human mistake-makers (that includes Rob Bennett, to be sure -- it should go unsaid but I include those words just in case there is anyone reading these words who is so filled with anger today that he has twisted his mind into a shape causing it to presumes otherwise). Hate is NOT a sound long-term investing strategy. I'm sure of it!</p>
<p>I wish everyone reading these words the best of luck in all his or her future endeavors. Helping all here to achieve the best out of life is of course the entire purpose of this entire post. whether your hate and anger and confusion and pain permits you to see that reality or not. Holy moly!</p>
<p>Rob</p>Old Historian commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e201348770fdbd970c2010-09-17T13:52:33Z2010-09-17T13:52:33ZOld HistorianRob Bennett said: “Here is the URL for an article at my site at which 101 community members expressed a...<p>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.”</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.... </p>
<p>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..."</p>
<p>11/22/02 "I disagree with the trash talking but I have some empathy for those who grow frustrated with hocus' style..."</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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."<br />
<br />
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."</p>
<p>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%" ?"<br />
</p>
<p>11/14/04 " >... good summary of the conundrum that is Hocus."</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>12/18/04 "I quit posting on that site as a direct result of hocus being allowed back in "</p>
<p>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"</p>
<p>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”</p>
<p>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."<br />
<br />
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."</p>
<p>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..."</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>06/04/06 "I've also put Hocus on ignore. He uses lots of words to say very little. Try it yourself..."<br />
<br />
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...."</p>
<p>06/17/06 "Do good fathers voluntarily place their kids in financial hardship?"</p>
<p>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..."</p>
<p>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"<br />
<br />
06/04/06 "i have an old barn that needs a lightning rod. are you available Rob? Wink"</p>
<p>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"<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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."</p>
<p>08/31/06 "I simply don't agree with his ideas."</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>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"</p>
<p>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. <br />
<br />
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."</p>
<p>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.” </p>
<p>02/24/07 "I think that just not mentioning [hocus] is probably a good policy”</p>
<p>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"</p>
<p>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."<br />
<br />
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..."</p>
<p>09/05/07 "Hocus does not have my permission to use my words or stories anywhere, ever."</p>
<p>NOTE: Quotes taken from this thread, which provide identity and source of every quote: <br />
<a href="http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1189390571/3#3" rel="nofollow">http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1189390571/3#3</a></p>
<p><br />
And finally, here is evidence in his own words that Rob “Hocus” Bennett has been pulling this same shtick for many years:<br />
<a href="http://s162532268.onlinehome.us/Sewer/viewtopic.php?t=1002&sid=915bc8e5e40031cfbf32090f37dff9ef" rel="nofollow">http://s162532268.onlinehome.us/Sewer/viewtopic.php?t=1002&sid=915bc8e5e40031cfbf32090f37dff9ef</a><br />
</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134876c3fef970c2010-09-16T22:20:36Z2010-09-16T22:20:36ZCarlyle"It's all there on the computer screen for anyone who cares to know what the story is." Indeed! FMF readers...<p>"It's all there on the computer screen for anyone who cares to know what the story is."</p>
<p>Indeed! FMF readers don't know anthing more about your S&P 500 Index market-timing strategy than they did a hundred plus posts ago, but they're now up to speed on Hocomania!</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134876c347b970c2010-09-16T22:12:27Z2010-09-16T22:12:27ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"The poster DRiP Guy pointed out how you twisted their words at the "Best of Hocomania Discussion Forum" in this...<p>"The poster DRiP Guy pointed out how you twisted their words at the "Best of Hocomania Discussion Forum" in this thread a long time back"</p>
<p>I believe everything Drip Guy says, Carlyle.</p>
<p>No -- really!</p>
<p>"The regulars here seem to have learned all they need to know"</p>
<p>We agree re this part, Carlyle. It's all there on the computer screen for anyone who cares to know what the story is.</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f44d331c970b2010-09-16T22:02:21Z2010-09-16T22:02:21ZCarlyle"Sue me" Not you, Hocus. You're my favorite internet troll! And I know you're just using the tricks of the...<p>"Sue me" </p>
<p>Not you, Hocus. You're my favorite internet troll! And I know you're just using the tricks of the trade that all trolls use. Like that technique where you mischaracterize buy-hold-balance as qet-rich-quick. But that's what trolls do. Like earlier in this comments thread where you bragged about "101 snippets" at your blog from those extolling the virtues of Rob "Hocus" Bennett. Did you forget you mischaracterized their words as well? The poster DRiP Guy pointed out how you twisted their words at the "Best of Hocomania Discussion Forum" in this thread a long time back;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1189390571/4#4" rel="nofollow">http://www.s152957355.onlinehome.us/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1189390571/4#4</a></p>
<p>By the way, great Hocomania, Mr. Bennett! It's said a man's gotta have a hobby. Trolling internet personal finance boards and blogs is a peculiar hobby but it is most amusing to those of us who have developed a taste for Hocomania! But enough, already. We've already taken far too much of FMF's time. You take care, Rob "Hocus" Bennett. The regulars here seem to have learned all they need to know about you and Hocmania. Time for you to move on and troll some other blog! </p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f44cfd56970b2010-09-16T21:31:43Z2010-09-16T21:31:43ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.comLong Live Get Rich Quick, Carlyle. I can't bring myself to put an exclamation point at the end of the...<p>Long Live Get Rich Quick, Carlyle.</p>
<p>I can't bring myself to put an exclamation point at the end of the phrase. I know too many people who have been hurt. Sue me.</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f44cf57d970b2010-09-16T21:27:47Z2010-09-16T21:27:47ZCarlyle"The issue is not going away. And the Goons obviously are not going away either. When you show them weakness,...<p>"The issue is not going away. And the Goons obviously are not going away either. When you show them weakness, they come back. It's what Goons do."</p>
<p>What issue? The issue of Rob "Hocus" Bennett trolling personal finance boards and blogs? That's been going on for some eight years now and appears does appear unlikely to go away. It has however become a moot point at the numerous boards and blogs which have banned Mr. Bennett.</p>
<p>Goons? That would be anyone with questions about Mr. Bennett's S&P 500 Index market timing strategy.</p>
<p>Show weakness? Rob, do you think describing your timing strategy in enough detail so a potential investor could actually use the strategy is showing weakness? And showing how such a strategy would have performed is showing weakness?</p>
<p>We see what trolls like Rob "Hocus" Bennett do. They endlessly spam blogs like this and behave as they always do...plenty of hyperbolic claims but no beef. A trolls gonna do what a trolls gonna do. Rob Bennett's gonna keep on trolling so long as there's new boards and blogs to spam! </p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134876bb456970c2010-09-16T21:02:34Z2010-09-16T21:02:34ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"Uh, Rob, comments like that not only hurt your credibility, but it will also cause readers to question your sanity."...<p>"Uh, Rob, comments like that not only hurt your credibility, but it will also cause readers to question your sanity."</p>
<p>I'm beginning to think that maybe Mickey HAS shown an interest.</p>
<p>Holy moly!</p>
<p>Rob</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134876bae73970c2010-09-16T20:58:23Z2010-09-16T20:58:23ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"when you simply leave a troll alone, they'll view that as some kind of psychological victory, and continue on as...<p>"when you simply leave a troll alone, they'll view that as some kind of psychological victory, and continue on as they please, without opposition."</p>
<p>Once we permit honest posting on safe withdrawal rates, it will soon spread to our discussions of all other investment topics. We're working at cross purposes, but I can acknowledge that your concerns re that one are well-placed. This won't end with permitting honest discussion of a single topic. No way, no how.</p>
<p>Rob</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134876ba8dc970c2010-09-16T20:55:37Z2010-09-16T20:55:37ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"When it becomes clear that someone doesn't want to debate the topic at hand but wants to make the discussion...<p>"When it becomes clear that someone doesn't want to debate the topic at hand but wants to make the discussion about something else I quickly lose interest."</p>
<p>Not quickly enough in this case, Apex. Or, if you lost interest in the ugliness quickly, you certainly did not express your revulsion in sufficiently strong terms to get the job done.</p>
<p>When the first link to the sewage site went up, all in this community who have an interest in serious discussion had a chance to express their revulsion and thereby to keep things on track. You didn't have the nerve and FMF didn't have the whatever.</p>
<p>So it goes.</p>
<p>The issue is not going away. And the Goons obviously are not going away either. When you show them weakness, they come back. It's what Goons do.</p>
<p>I put up a post urging Greaney's removal on November 23, 2002. I made similar comments about Lindauer several years ago. I've done my part. This obviously is not a one-man job.</p>
<p>I am grateful for the constructive and positive and life-affirming comments that you put forward. I think there's a possibility that those helped a few people out. Good for you re that part!</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f44ca627970b2010-09-16T20:48:54Z2010-09-16T20:48:54ZCarlyle"It's curious why this discussion continues." I couldn't agree more! I'll be the first to admit I don't understand what...<p>"It's curious why this discussion continues."</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more! I'll be the first to admit I don't understand what it is that so intrigues my about Hocomania. Obviously whatever merit exists in timing the S&P 500 Index using Shillers PE10 metric will never be discerned by engaging in a discussion with Rob "Hocus" Bennett. As you see, he steadfastly refuses to address any questions about the approach with substantive responses. </p>
<p>My interest in Hocomania is more related to the personal interest aspect and how can it be that an individual would devote so much time and effort to trolling online personal finance boards and blogs in a quicotic quest for fame and fortune. And at the same time that individual fatally sabotages any legitimate discussion of his concept by trotting out all the extraneous baggage that's come to be known as Hocomania. But you're right, I don't know which is goofier; the troll posting incessantly with gibberish or those responding to his trolling and thus enabling the troll! </p>
<p>But I like to think it to be all harmless fun. Following Rob Bennett and his Hocomania Routine is like looking over the shoulder of a grad student working on his psychology thesis! I readily acknowledge that Hocomania is an acquired taste that most don't find amusing. My thanks to FMF for hosting this latest in a long line of similiar episodes of Hocomania for the enjoyment of those who do!</p>Eugene Krabs commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f44c7a76970b2010-09-16T20:27:59Z2010-09-16T20:27:59ZEugene KrabsUh yeah, I guess we have gotten to that point, haven't we? Alright, I'll call it a day then. At...<p>Uh yeah, I guess we have gotten to that point, haven't we? Alright, I'll call it a day then. At least, until something actually substantive comes along.</p>
<p>As for dragging it out, well, when you simply leave a troll alone, they'll view that as some kind of psychological victory, and continue on as they please, without opposition. Besides, it helps to make my day go by quicker. :D</p>Apex commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f44c6d69970b2010-09-16T20:20:39Z2010-09-16T20:20:39ZApexIt's curious why this discussion continues. Yes it did get FMF over the 100 comment number but I am not...<p>It's curious why this discussion continues. </p>
<p>Yes it did get FMF over the 100 comment number but I am not sure why characters from burger joints under the sea are continuing to ask for answers from someone who clearly isn't going to give any but instead wants to talk about things like death threats and deadly cereal (captain crunch maybe?).</p>
<p>When it becomes clear that someone doesn't want to debate the topic at hand but wants to make the discussion about something else I quickly lose interest. I don't find the various forms of debate diversion and distraction to be anything other than an exercise in feeding the appetite of the distractor.</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134876b5cb7970c2010-09-16T20:11:51Z2010-09-16T20:11:51ZCarlyle'None of this still answers any relevant questions regarding the original investment theory.' "Is it Goofy who most needs to...<p>'None of this still answers any relevant questions regarding the original investment theory.'</p>
<p>"Is it Goofy who most needs to know this or Pluto?</p>
<p>It can't be Mickey! This hasn't gone that big yet, has it?</p>
<p>Rob"</p>
<p>This is par for the course for Rob Bennett. Folks ask him serious questions about his S&P 500 Index market-timing strategy, he initially responds with a barrage of Hocomania but ultimately simply posts nonsense responses. It took a hundred posts but we've arrived at the only thing of value Rob Bennett and Hocomania have to offer those interested in personal finance; amusement!</p>
<p>One would think Mr. Bennett would be eager to explain his valuation strategy and how it performed. But one would be wrong. It's difficult to grasp what it is that motivates a troll to spend his days spamming online boards and blogs. So I won't spend too much time divining what it is that motivates Rob "Hocus" Bennett.</p>
<p>If any of the readers have any interest in learning more about Rob's S&P 500 Index market-timing strategy I bid you, "Good luck!" As you can see, Mr. Bennett has no interest in providing a prospective investor a detailed description of how he or she could actually use it to invest in the S&P 500. And as to what returns such a strategy might have garnered over past periods of time? FUGETABOUTIT!</p>FMF commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f44c4799970b2010-09-16T20:01:31Z2010-09-16T20:01:31ZFMFhttp://www.freemoneyfinance.comOver 100 comments! Yeah!!!!!! ;-)<p>Over 100 comments! Yeah!!!!!! ;-)</p>Eugene Krabs commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134876b40ef970c2010-09-16T19:54:06Z2010-09-16T19:54:06ZEugene Krabs"Is it Goofy who most needs to know this or Pluto? It can't be Mickey! This hasn't gone that big...<p>"Is it Goofy who most needs to know this or Pluto?</p>
<p>It can't be Mickey! This hasn't gone that big yet, has it?"</p>
<p>Uh, Rob, comments like that not only hurt your credibility, but it will also cause readers to question your sanity. I am beginning to wonder if the person I've been debating with all this time even HAS the mental capacity to be rational?</p>
<p>My original question are copy and pasted here, in this very thread. They are available for your perusal anytime. Further questions can be found throughout this thread. I'll be more than happy to resume our discussion regarding your value-informed indexing, but it would be really nice if you could provide some details regarding what it is.</p>Rob Bennett commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20134876b35e0970c2010-09-16T19:47:24Z2010-09-16T19:47:24ZRob Bennetthttp://arichlife.passionsaving.com"None of this still answers any relevant questions regarding the original investment theory." Is it Goofy who most needs to...<p>"None of this still answers any relevant questions regarding the original investment theory."</p>
<p>Is it Goofy who most needs to know this or Pluto?</p>
<p>It can't be Mickey! This hasn't gone that big yet, has it?</p>
<p>Rob</p>Carlyle commented on 'The Active versus Passive Decision'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451bcbd69e20133f44c2476970b2010-09-16T19:40:44Z2010-09-16T19:40:44ZCarlyle"This fellow said this on an investing forum? Is he some sort of nutcase or what?" Yes, the comments in...<p>"This fellow said this on an investing forum?</p>
<p>Is he some sort of nutcase or what?"</p>
<p>Yes, the comments in this comments section from Rob Bennett provide ample evidence of the mental state of Mr. Bennett.<br />
</p>