Saturday, December 15, 2012

Dr. Leeb Calls the OG a Liar and Worse

Fortunately for this gentleman, the OG has mellowed over the years. I told Dr. Leeb that my blog is free and unsupported by advertising. Is that a true or false statement? He said that I tell lies. I was advertising my blog by inserting a link to my blog in the comment section to an article written by this gentleman at SeekingAlpha. (see LEEB at 12/14/12 at 10:15 P.M "You have trouble writing a few paragraphs without lying") What? That was certainly an interesting twist to what I actually said. This caused me to insert some language in my SeekingAlpha Profile page. southgent1951 - Seeking Alpha (click the "more" tab)

After one too many condescending remarks to virtually anyone who disagreed with his thesis that Amazon was a value stock, I decided to mention the performance of the Leeb Focus fund, rated two stars by Morningstar, that had less than $7M in assets since starting operations in 2007. The annualized loss per year is -2.77% over the past five years. It was interesting that the fund had sold Amazon. Top 25 Companies - MSN Money

Well, how has an individual investor like the OG performed since October 2007? So I sent him a link to a post that contained snapshots of the performance data computed by Fidelity in my main taxable and my regular IRA, Item # 2 Main Taxable and Regular IRA Accounts Performance Numbers Calculated by Broker (see my comment at 12/14/12 at 7:24)

The good doctor could barely contain himself with invective hurled at the OG after I linked that post. He called me a liar again, probably a lot worse as shown below, and concluded that I should be ashamed of myself, for claiming or implying that Fidelity provides "audited" results.

Leeb to the OG: "And incidentally to the best of my knowledge Fidelity does not audit performance. I will check with them to see if I am right. Suggesting certitude where none exist is at best a lie at worst - maybe we will find out.  In other words, implying an audited performance where none exists is not exactly what you should be doing in this very tough world. I may be wrong on many things but I stand proud on never ripping people off or misrepresenting something for the sake of touting myself. You should be ashamed." Leeb at 12/14/09 9:38 and 9:40.

Pretty strong stuff there. This was in response to the following statement made by me:

"I posted my last performance numbers in my main taxable account, just my largest, and my regular IRA, both calculated by Fidelity that included the Near Depression period." 

Well, I made no such claim or implication of "audited" results. I linked the preceding post that explained the details but the good doctor did not check it out before hurling the invective.

OG to Leeb: The performance numbers, as I said, are provided by Fidelity as any customer of Fidelity knows. The calculation done by Fidelity, and not by me, can be found under the tab "performance", next to the tab Analysts and Portfolio Reserch. Please check that out before you call me a liar again.  

I said the data was computed by Fidelity, not by me. I never used the word audited. One would think that Fidelity's computer could take my trade data, interest and dividends and compute a return, but that is apparently not accepted by the good Doctor, particularly when my returns smashed his mutual fund (evidence about the motive for calling a person a liar would be extremely relevant particularly on the issue of punitive damages) And, I am just a simple individual investor who was too dense to even understand the Doctor's teachings. 

What were those returns computed by Fidelity that sent the Doctor into orbit?

10/31/2007 to 10/31/11: Regular IRA +100.6%

That is a plus number by the way. 

Beating the S & P by 62.31%

Main Taxable Account (more than a few bucks in that one)

10/31/2007 to 10/31/11  73.2%

Beating the S & P by 35.03%

Please note that period includes some of the worst stock market action in modern times, the November 2008 to March 2009 period. 

Of course, those were snapshots of my Fidelity accounts, and any Fidelity customer would recognize the format. The data is readily available under the "performance" tab and Fidelity has an audio explaining how their computers calculate the number, all of which I pointed out to the good doctor which apparently went in one ear and out the other as the saying goes.

I did not feel a need to give the doctor a lecture on defamation law. I would caution others, however, that it is generally not a good idea to publicly call a non-public figure a liar in print when it would be so easy to prove the truth of every statement.  

The rest of the exchange was just hilarious. A large number of statements that I made were twisted completely out of shape and context and thrown back at me in unrecognizable form. I was assigned motives for saying something that were obviously not supported by my statements. For example, I tried to explain to him how I was able to compile those results. The good doctor had no interest in that of course. He would say that southgent did not have a page at Wikepedia (what?) and he did; he had written a bunch of books and had securities go up 50 times (though he claimed not to be rich!). Was that relevant to my point of explaining how I had was able to compile the results since October 2007? It was just amazing for me to read it. In my entire life, I had never seen anything remotely like it.  

The OG is mellow now, forgive and forget, turn the other cheek and all of that stuff. It was not always that way when the LB ruled the roost. It would not be a good idea to make those accusations back in the day unless you wanted to have two new ass holes torn for you.  OG' s Qualifications and Lack of Qualifications

Best not to mess with the LB whose essence is shown in this 1969 picture:

Comments to: Amazon: Anathema To Value Investors? - Seeking Alpha. This may provide some entertainment for anyone bored over the weekend. 


  1. Some of his responses veered away from poor reading comprehension, and into something creepy. But then again, most of this post became redundant after you relayed that he viewed Amazon as a "value" stock.

  2. Al: I actually stayed away from some issues that I knew about Dr. Leeb since I knew that would send him in orbit and he would simply hurl more invective my way.

    I know about him. I have been around for awhile.

    An example is an interesting discussion in the October 1996 issue of Kiplinger where it gave out Hall of Shame awards. It is interesting reading particularly in context of the claims that he was making about himself.

    These old magazines are capable of being found at Google books. If you are interested in reading more, you could do a google search with the exact phrase "hall of shame" and then add in the top line Kiplinger October 1996.

    The thing about a libel case is that everything is in writing and not subject to evasion on what was said. If Trial attorneys come across these loose cannons who just talk and talk, just let them talk, give them all of the rope they are willing to take. And they will hang themselves.

    The interesting thing about Amazon is that I am not adverse making an investment provided I have proof that Amazon is on the road to sustained and relatively fast GAAP E.P.S. growth. I just was not going to pay 400 times earnings or whatever it is now for that vision thing that has no manifestation yet in history.

  3. Would you be willing to share your current thinking on VALE, collect, wait a little? Oregon

  4. My position on Vale is so small that I have not given it much thought, so I went back and read my thoughts in the 8/31/12 post.

    I said then that I would consider harvesting my profit on the shares bought at $15.9 when the share price went over $20 after collecting one dividend.

    I have collected the dividend that was referenced in that post.

    The price as I write is $20.09. I will wait until I can review some recent news. The price action is positive since the shares sunk to $17.18 on 12/4/12.

    The recent news about China is good, and Vale is a China story.

  5. Mr. Oregon:

    I did not exactly bust my butt on this matter but I raised my VALE target to $22 from $20. This does not mean that I would automatically sell at $22, but only that I would look at it again.

    My reasons include:

    1. Iron Ore prices have rallied almost 50% since the close at $88.75 per ton (September 2012) to close at $132.75. That is important since it is signaling an upswing in China's demand. Excess inventories appear to have been run down, based on a report that I reviewed. A report at says that the estimate is that China's demand will grow 7.5% in 2013.

    2. The price momentum off the recent low of $17.18 is strong.

    3. The stock has just broken above its 200 day SMA

  6. I do not know how many shares of Vale that you own, nor do I want to do. I assume it is more than 50. If I own a lot of shares, I may pare just to harvest some profits rather than being a pig. On a 50 share lot, I am either all in or out. I hate it when I let all of the gain slip away by staying too long at the trough.

    FYI, relating to this post, I received a notice that SeekingAlpha has deleted one of my comments to the Leeb article, where I mentioned the valuation technique that I would use to value the shares but where I also defended myself against one of Leeb's many assaults. The purported rationale was the post did not entirely relate to Amazon, but about 80% of the posts at SA do not entirely relate to the topic and some of them have no relationship at all.

    Fortunately, SA can not persuade Google to delete one of my posts here.