For example, his track record of written opinion during the gold bullion run-up from approximately the 800 per ounce level until the present, in regard to his views on the gold mining sector, they could be chacterized as being:
buy and hold and buy some more, a devestating view if you had actually taken it for granted and acted thusly so.
no critique of his outwardly expressed views or any discussion could persuade him to think otherwise.
of course, having an investment opinion and being incorrect is no great crime by itself or in particular when it is limited to your own investment account. It does becomes a greater issue when you charge people $500 per year for your opinion, and you then consistently reject all manner of sound reasons against it on the one hand, and without reflecting it in your own expensive advice to your readers on the other hand. It is, at the least, intellectually dishonest. A Minyanville professoring without an earned degree to make a metaphor.
I have had over the years numerous discussions with him where what seemed quite obvious to me were rejected by him out of hand. I have witnessed the same in his interactions with other, I believe to be, quite credible, and highly skilled analysts. all well and fine.
However, in the case of a particular company he had for some time bullishly touted, including that he owned shares in it, and he did so in his newsletter and to me personally, the truth of the matter, while offering the same unwavering positive opinion of it, he had, as he told me in writing, long ago sold it. At the same time, he did not tell his readers and he expressed no regret of any kind when he told me.
This, was not all well and fine, and was the beginning of the end of any positive view I might hold in his regard. I have relied on his own words to form my opinion, in answer to your question.
Maybe, he lied. One could only find the absolute truth by matching his written words with his trading statements. If that did, in fact, clear his conduct, it would not clear, however, the subsequent question of taking him at his word. Your word is the last and most powerful contract one can make with someone else. When broken it cannot be hedged away.
He broke it. That is both very clear and very true.
We are here right now because he chose to confront me in a public place, one not controlled by him. He thought he could arrive out of thin air to accuse me of stalking him, threatening his family in some creative dramaticly staged episode. Maybe he dreamed it and is not yet fully awake. I do not know the answer to this.
But more importantly I do appreciate that my responses to him are allowed to be read, and are no longer deleted. He chose to arrive thinking he had a bully pulpit in my regard. He doesn't now. He is answerable, no matter what name he chooses to call himself on Silicon Investor or anywhere else. He chose to merge his personae into one. It is his own doing.
So Mr. Lewis or whatever name you would like to use, I'd like an apology. |
