Hi Guys,
I feel that I am a victim of character assassination on MFO.
I was far too generous in my initial response. I regret that. The gloves are coming off now.
I had to control my anger when I initially read Cman’s character assassination directed at me. That anger has not really subsided, especially, since in retrospect, many of you did not rally to decry his character assassination ploy. I do thank the few MFOers who did respond to this dastardly and cowardly act.
It’s somewhat disappointing that many MFOers failed to recognize that Cman brushed you guys off as not being capable of contributing to his market education, or perhaps to his financial welfare.
He said: "it wasn't a good fit". You guys were not responding differentially enough to his offered wisdom. He discharged you! You were not demonstrating enough respect.
He must have been greatly disappointed with your lack of enthusiasm for his recommendation to consider a Japanese investment as measured by exactly only 5 readers. That must have hurt more than any comments I made. To document my claim, here is the internal link to his Japan posting:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com:80/discuss/discussion/13807/japan-improving-technicalshttp://www.mutualfundobserver.com:80/discuss/discussion/13807/japan-improving-technicalsNote that I provided a Link to establish the credibility of my statement. How many Links and references did Cman provide to support his advice? My answer is “nearly zero”, and it was constantly near zero.
Cman asserted almost everything he posted. He rarely documented those assertions with data or references. Truth be told, I agreed with almost everything he said; but not everything. I never doubted nor challenged that he is an intelligent, experienced investor.
However, many of his submittals were internally inconsistent; earlier statements were contradicted by later statements. He was definitely the two-handed economist. His attack on my character serves to illustrate this proclivity. It pains me, but I will here reproduce his charges of my “mindless drivel” for fairness and completeness.
Near the middle of Cman’s closing rant he said: “if analysis like this results in people like
@MJG making recommendations not to consider the family unless one were a fool, such a write up may not be libelous in legal sense but is definitely irresponsible.” That’s his opinion. He is free to express it.
Near the end of Cman’s rant he said: “But if this site wants to be taken seriously in the industry and be responsible about it, it has to be much more diligent in not leaving it open for broad and mindless inferences like the one from
@MJG above. I don't think he really understands science or academic endeavors based on what he shows with his understanding of what he comments on rather than what he keeps claiming and painting himself with regarding academics and science. Like those false patriots that keep doing dumb things while wrapping themselves in the flag.”
This is a plea for censorship; a curtailment of the freedom of opinion, especially if it runs counter to his opinion. I suppose we should make him the kingmaker.
He never challenges my positions by offering evidence that I distorted or misinterpreted data or commentary.
He claims I don’t understand science, yet I graduated in the top-most tier of all my many college studies, won a National scholarship, married a scientist, contributed in the engineering and scientific community my entire work cycle that includes my military period, and finally advanced to the engineering management field where I directed research projects with heavy National implications.
What are the specific facts to backstop Cman’s claims? Again, they are wild, undocumented assertions. What is in his mysterious background that qualifies him to judge my scientific competency based on a few of my admittedly amateur investing comments?
Finally, I must address the most fundamental charge implying that I am a “false patriot”. I served in both the regular and the reserve US Army. I resolutely stand by our flag and will proudly fly it a few days from now, June 6, our Longest Day. I will shed tears that day.
Do you trust a man who makes such unsupported and uninformed allegations? He’ll resort to even attacking your patriotism. I don’t. What an overreach! You get to decide for yourself.
You guys know quite a lot about both Charles and my background, so, for brevity, I will not repeat it here. By way of contrast, what do you know about Cman? Could he be a salesman of financial services? Is that why “it wasn't a good fit"? Maybe. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but there is a Cman Investments operation in Chandler, AZ.
All this is pure speculation, but it is faintly possible. It is something to think about, just very briefly, since it “macht nichts” in the long run. Hell it doesn’t matter in the short run either.
Thank you for reading my defense against this character assassination attempt. I’m relieved to get this off my chest. Thanks for your tolerance. I’m a happy warrior once again.
Best Regards.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Boohoo.
That’s how I feel about your character assassination plight.
The phrase “the shoe is on the other foot” comes to mind.
Now is when I wish I had kept your responses to many of my posts.
You know, such as when you insinuated that I was making up
my LT returns.
I wish I could recall the various names you called me which where less than polite.
But I let it roll off my back. I didn’t respond in-kind or question
the rest of the board for not supporting me against your accusations.
If you’re looking my sympathy, forget it.
cman may have gone way to far, but I believe that you’ve stepped over
that line yourself where my investment strategies were concerned
when you made it personal.
OK, you’ve defended your honor. Take a deep breath and forget it.
Regards,
Ted
I am less than happy with the responses I get regarding money and ethics when I can't help but to mention it, or I join a conversation ("thread") in which it has been mentioned. In fact, maybe I'm the ONLY one to mention it. Mostly, in response, I get: "don't go mixing those two--- money and ethics." It makes me wonder what color the sky is on those planets where everyone else comes from.
But in the end, at the start, and in the middle, this is a Mutual fund board. We're here to help each other with that. Not many of us have met in person. I myself trust that we are all trustworthy and with good intentions, despite never having met in person.
I have "friends" on Facebook. There are all manner of remarks and bullshit that I see there, too. I can choose to simply flip the switch and turn them off, if their input is too distasteful and ridiculous.
I do not believe that any of us are going to change each others' convictions or approach to Reality (or even Mutual Funds.) Such deep-seated changes, I am convinced, are a very rare occurrence. Something remarkable and surprising must come along, to cause such transformations. Getting rid of our biases and assumptions is of course good and necessary, but very difficult to do--- whether re: mutual funds or religion.
Through thick and thicker, I can choose to tune-out anyone's input here. Ignore it. Forget it deliberately. Give it no attention, if that's what I want to do.
I always thought cman was interesting and with thoughts worth my attention---at least. I think MJG is interesting, too. Sometimes just plain too wordy. But that doesn't make him wrong, or a fool. Or anything else.
I do not wish to get into a triangle here, involving cman and MJG. I'd like to hear more from them both. Let's leave it at that. MUTUAL FUNDS.
It’s good to hear from you after such prolonged silence. I hope you are well and that your investments are performing well.
I don’t specifically recall the exchanges that you reference. Like you, I too can not easily access them.
But I doubt my exchanges that you remember were written in the form or context that you cite. I try very hard to be polite and do not challenge claims that are plausible, if not directly verifiable. Yes, there are a few rare exceptions.
The only exception that comes immediately to mind is if the claims are outlandishly oversized relative to excess returns over a long timeframe. I would never challenge a huge single year return. Almost anything is possible.
But it is likely that I would challenge a claim over an extended timeframe that grossly exceeds compound annual returns generated by recognized superior money managers. Peter Lynch, Warren Buffett and his Super-Investors fall into that category. Over long time horizons these rare investors generated annual returns in the high teens and low twenty percent area. All of them had excess returns below double digits.
If someone on MFO claimed to have long-term, double digit annual excess (Alpha) compound returns, I would likely challenge that declaration. Under those unlikely and unusual circumstances, I just might ask for some verifiable evidence. I surely don’t remember if those were the circumstances at the time of our disagreement.
So I have moved-on; apparently you did not. You have nursed this sour milk for a long time. You should have expressed your displeasure with my postings at the time. They could have been resolved. Doing so now, smacks from piling-on.
Too, too bad. I thought and hoped we put whatever past disagreements we had in the dustbin of history. I'm breathing deeply and well; I hope you are too.
Added: I'm not looking for sympathy; just going on the record.
Best Wishes (and I truly mean it).
Yes, I’m still breathing well, thank you very much, and I’m glad to
hear that you’re doing the same.
“So I have moved-on; apparently you did not. You have nursed this
sour milk for a long time. You should have expressed your displeasure
with my postings at the time. They could have been resolved. Doing so now,
smacks from piling-on.”
Boy, you do love the straw dog approach/attack… as you did with cman
when you inferred that he might be “a salesman of financial services”.
Boy, we all hate those folks… and he just might be one of them!
Until I read your Character Assassination post, I had forgotten about
our discussions. But your post brought it back.
“If someone on MFO claimed to have long-term, double digit annual
excess (Alpha) compound returns, I would likely challenge that declaration.
Under those unlikely and unusual circumstances, I just might ask for some
verifiable evidence. I surely don’t remember if those were the circumstances
at the time of our disagreement.”
Actually, Charles researched my LT market strategy and provided this -
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/06/timing-method-performance-over-ten-decades/
I remember that you read this because you responded to him questioning
one or more of his metrics. But I found interesting that you did not comment
on the results of his study; namely the market beating returns.
Additionally, selling short during major market downturns has augmented
my LT returns. And I never claimed to have double digit ANNUAL returns.
There have been several years during downturns when I had less than
double digit results.
I know that you and I have much in common. Our market returns are no match
for our desire to give investment guidance where we can. We have both given
of our time and energy to aid other investors and we’ll continue to do so.
Truly Best Wishes,
AKAFlack
Check it out ... as I have linked it below.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cman-Investments/156859291015222
Now, I womder if his compliance department, if there is one, told him he had to quit posting on MFO?
Old_Skeet
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/06/timing-method-performance-over-ten-decades/
Come on, backtested, simulated, hypothetical results are utterly worthless. And I am the biggest proponent of anyone on this board of momentum trading/investing. All that counts are multi year real money results. Something those in Vendorville/Academicville can never seem to provide. In addition, Larry Williams has done probably more research into moving averages than anyone alive. His conclusion after doing extensive research with moving averages, moving average crossovers, and channels is that none of them consistently make money. While he agrees that moving averages may be good trading tools, he says it is next to impossible to build a winning system solely around moving averages.
I have got to use straw dog and strawman in the same arg online sometime!
cman, I wish you would stay as you were an asset to the community but regardless, Happy Trails to You!
Thanks for your response.
Please, just a moment of your time – then I’ll drop this conversation.
Mr. Larry Williams is a TRADER.
He SELLS investment courses, a newsletter and books.
In my opinion, all of the people who are trying to sell you complicated
advice will never admit that the average LT investor can avoid major market
crashes and achieve market beating returns as a result of applying
something as simple as moving averages.
Acknowledging this would destroy their credibility and their business.
Remember, we’re talking LT investors.
I know that it pains a lot of investors to think that maybe they’ve been
wasting a good deal of time and energy knee deep in research when they
could have achieved better returns simply by managing their
portfolio – in just five minutes a month.
The study that Charles provided is what it is – you can call it back testing
but I’ve lived it… otherwise I would never have recommended it.
@Junkster: still sticking with the hi yield munis? looks like the environment continues to favor carry -- the new neutral.
so long.
Take care.
It seems to me that a number of things may be conspiring to produce this.
My impression is that previously we had quite a number of "just regular folks" who regularly exchanged views on different matters, in an attempt to be mutually helpful, and to share different real-world experiences, aimed at many levels of sophistication (or lack thereof) among the participants. Commentary was generally quite respectful, even when differing points of view or knowledge levels were involved.
Over time we seem to have evolved to a situation where a few "alpha males" attempt to dominate the forum by turning it into a lecture hall where the rest of us may be allowed to observe revealed wisdom, as long as we do so quietly. Feedback regarding tone of voice, excessive verbosity or complexity is dismissed as an ad-hominem or "personal attack".
As might be expected, competition for attention among this self-appointed "leadership group" has resulted in lengthy internecine "attack arguments" frequently involving intricately detailed theories, arcane quotations from academic sources, exercises in extended logic argument, and contemptuous dismissal of any position not endorsed by the would-be leader.
Another factor is the greatly increased "shotgun blast" of link posting, which seems to have replaced quality with quantity. Where previously the majority of posted links drew some reply from other posters, now there is a seemingly endless column of "links", the great majority of which draw no response whatsoever, and in many cases fewer than 10 views. Again, an "alpha male" attempt to dominate the forum.
Finally, the repeated personal attacks upon a particular individual's investment philosophy has introduced an ugly tone into what previously was acceptance of individual diversity, or at worst a gentle bantering regarding someone's methodology.
We have been blessed for many years with participants who cheerfully shared their experience or knowledge with others- a few names come to mind: Fundmentals, Bob C, fundalarm (aka jr), rono, Investor, Catch 22, GregFromBoston, Junkster, Flack, Scott... of course there are many more also. A significant portion of our present portfolio is directly due to the help provided by these and others over the years.
These folks provided many years worth of accumulated experience, and as a group were able to provide invaluable common-sense counseling, even to investment novices. Speaking of which, how often do we now see investment beginners coming here for help or advice? Certainly nowhere near as often as a few years ago. Perhaps that is simply due to the general atmosphere of the investment world these days, but could it possibly also be a perception that MFO seems to be primarily a site for "insiders"?
Note that I've deliberately not cited any specific poster names here, other than those who have been most true to the spirit of FundAlarm, but rather have simply sketched some generally unattractive elements of recent postings. The last thing that we need right now is yet another series of personal attacks.
Whatever... more questions than answers, I'm afraid. Let's just hope that things improve.
OJ
fundalarm, still sticking with junk munis as they have yet to have a meaningful correction YTD. Using a 2% trailing stop from highs as my exit point, a bit higher than normal for me. My particular fund, NHMRX, has benefitted greatly from AAL, its largest position. Not sure how this equity became a junk muni fund's largest and only stock holding. I am sure there is a story behind that I'm unaware of. At one time recently their second largest holding was the preferred of AAL. (Edit actually at this juncture prefer emerging markets bonds ala DLENX more than junk munis. But don't believe in selling winners so sticking with the junk munis)
My process on the links of one member here is that out of the 30 or so he puts up there are only about 3-5 that I pick to read. Usually have of those are disappointments. They are more of a tabloid than educational.
I hope some of the old timers come back. I miss the info they provided.
Question for consideration: Is this a "discussion" board where everyone from rank novice to the occasional professional (like BobC) feels they have something to contribute - or is it instead an "advice forum" having but a few highly knowledgeable individuals dispensing advice for the consumption of everybody else?
No answers here either. And it's probably too late anyway. So many stalwarts I used to enjoy reading have left.
In terms of the above, I was thinking the other day that this discussion forum seems like a "club". As nice as that is, I think the reality is that it takes effort and cost to maintain. That effort and cost for what is effectively a "little club" - it becomes whether or not David wants to continue it. I don't want to put words in David's mouth, but I think this website could just be David's writings and it would be cheaper and easier to maintain. The fact that the forum is here is a really nice thing that David has chosen to continue.
I'm disappointed that some people who have posted here consistently seem to have gone, both a while ago and more recently (Max hasn't posted lately as an example.) The unfortunate thing is that I know some people have left, but I think reading this thread, I really started to realize how many former regulars haven't posted in a while. I'm not going to go into a whole thing about the links, but, lets think about it in a different way: if you took away the links in recent months, how many posts are left?
I do think that if the forum were to expand (new regulars and hopefully some of the old regulars returning), it would potentially benefit MFO as a whole. The board could be a pretty remarkable discussion forum that could attract more in the way of professionals in the industry. But, for that to happen, I really think that the issues that you mention have to be addressed and probably have to be reasonably soon.
Thank you for your compliments (steppinrazor. too.) I like sharing my thoughts on the board and people are welcome to take them as they may. There's a lot of posters who I come here to get information from, as well - such as BobC and fundalarm, given their perspective from being in the financial industry - and others, too.
With regard to various other behaviors on the forums (posting of irrelevant videos, forms of bullying), I expect the site owner has decided to let the adults sort it out for themselves. Sometimes that works, sometimes more direction is needed. Or perhaps David thought the direction had already been provided:
“Mutual Fund Observer:
will treat every reader with goodwill and respect, you’ve got a brain and our mission is to help you make good decisions – not to try to make them for you.
…
expects every visitor to extend respect and support to the other members
Uh, nope.
I am interested in the dialogue between Charles and cman and hope to read more from both.
@MJG: Chest bumping is not character assassination.
Hank, I think you nailed that nail even more so. I remember someone making a statement, a fairly new poster if I recall, telling another that there was 'only a couple posters worth reading and you can ignore the rest'. That was enough to make me not start any new discussions anymore.
Things constantly change and I guess we all adapt in our own way. Take care Hank. Hope you never leave
Regards-OJ
Old Joe, please consider re-posting your concerns under a separate thread where perhaps they'll get the attention they deserve and possibly lead to some resolution of the issues raised. Great observations on your part, but possibly misplaced under an "assassination" thread.
Regarding this thread's title, InformalEconomist got it right when he said "chest bumping is not character assassination." All I can suggest is perhaps when one gets bumped he bump back - even harder if necessary. That's the way the world generally works. Right? Whereas pleas for sympathy are rarely rewarded.
Over the years I have made a point to comment on things where I can contribute to ongoing education or try to keep someone from making a mistake, based on my 30 years of advising clients. Occasionally I say something dumb, and I always try to own up to it. And goodness knows if we could go back 3, 5 years and get a re-do on things, we surely would. So my tendency is to ignore the folks who become disagreeable. David can police this board and act accordingly. When I get attacked, and it happens very rarely, I usually take a respite and give myself some time to cool off. Most folks on this board are good people who are more than surface learners. We should all keep that in mind.