Senate Banking Committee Hearing Stanley Fischer Questions to ask

February 26, 2014

Questions to ask Stanley Fischer at the March 4, 2014 Senate Banking Committee hearing.

http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=adc83227-bf93-4387-9922-08d62b25930a

  1. Did you see the thesis of Nils Hakansson or the working paper 101 version earlier than you admit to in your Ph.D. thesis at MIT?
  2. Did you get a copy of the working paper version of Hakansson’s paper on applying his methods to uncertain lifetime and which is equivalent to chapter 5 of your thesis?
  3. Did Hakansson invent multiple period portfolio theory?
  4. If so, why does Hakansson not get recognition for it?
  5. Why was Hakansson never made a Fellow of the Econometric Society?
  6. Was Paul Samuelson on the mailing list for the UCLA working paper series that distributed copies of the Hakansson working paper 101?
  7. Did Miguel Sidrauski and you agree you could use parts of Hakansson’s thesis without citing it?
  8. Did Duncan Foley provide you a copy of the Hakansson working paper from Yale on uncertain lives?
  9. Did Franklin Fisher suggest or make you cite Hakansson in your thesis?
  10. Was there a copy of any of Hakansson’s papers in the office you had with Robert C. Merton?
  11. Was that prior to the publication of the Robert C. Merton and Samuelson papers in August 1969?
  12. If you had seen the Hakansson paper before August 1969, didn’t you talk to Robert C. Merton about it since you shared an office with him?
  13. Did you and Robert C. Merton discuss that Samuelson and Merton should cite the Hakansson paper prior to the August 1969 Samuelson paper?
  14. Joe Stiglitz cited Hakansson in a January 1969 Cowles paper that thanked Samuelson for comments. Doesn’t that show Samuelson knew of the Hakansson paper before August 1969?
  15. Franklin Fisher was your 3rd Ph.D. Chairman, was on the Merton Ph.D. committee and was editor of Econometrica which had received the Hakansson paper in 1966 and published it in 1970.  Was he trying to clean up your act and make you and Merton cite Hakansson?
  16. On June 4, 1969, Econometrica sent Hakansson a letter acknowledging the receipt on May 5, 1969 of the final version of the Hakansson paper to be published in 1970 in Econometrica.  Did Franklin Fisher talk to you about the Hakansson paper in that time period, i.e. in May and June of 1969?  Did you then discuss it with Robert C. Merton?  Didn’t Franklin Fisher give you a copy of the Hakansson thesis and working paper 101 in May and June of 1969?
  17. Didn’t you show those and discuss those with Robert C. Merton?
  18. Why weren’t those cited by Samuelson and Merton in the August 1969 Samuelson Merton papers?
  19. Had you seen the Hakansson paper before May 1969?
  20. In 1968?
  21. In 1967?
  22. Wasn’t it discussed by others?
  23. Did Peter Diamond discuss the Hakansson paper with you in 1968?
  24. Did Karl Shell discuss the Hakansson paper with you while he was at MIT?
  25. When did you insert the note into your thesis that you had seen the Hakansson thesis after you had written the corresponding parts of your thesis?
  26. Had you also seen the Hayne Leland Harvard 1968 thesis on multiple period portfolio theory while writing your thesis?
  27. Earlier than you imply in your thesis?
  28. Samuelson says that his paper was based on the Bellman Beckmann Phelps methodology.  If Samuelson thought that and he was on your thesis committee, why didn’t you cite the Phelps paper as Samuelson did?
  29. Wasn’t it because you based your thesis on Hakansson and Leland and not on Phelps which was earlier and not as developed?
  30. When was your final thesis copy typed?
  31. “Since writing this chapter I have benefitted from reading work by Hakansson [16] and Leland [18] in this same area.  See also Fama[11]”.
  32. Was that written after you got to Chicago in fall 1969?  Did Chicago make you insert that?
  33. Did Fama in 1968 already cite Hakansson 1966?  So Chicago was able to compare your thesis and Hakansson and knew you had used Hakansson as a template and not Phelps or Samuelson?
  34. Wasn’t your thesis written before Samuelson wrote his 1969 paper?
  35. Didn’t Samuelson use your thesis along with Hayne Leland and Hakansson to write his paper?
  36. Didn’t you talk about the Leland, Hakansson papers with Robert C. Merton prior to the Merton Samuelson papers being conceived?
  37. Wasn’t Merton using your thesis and the Leland and Hakansson to do the continuous time version, and Samuelson’s paper somehow got added in as the discrete time version without citing the work of Leland, Hakansson or you?
  38. Did Russia learn of this set of events before the 1975 Nobel Prize for Koopmans and Kantorovich?
  39. Kenneth Arrow arrived at Harvard in 1968.  Didn’t he discuss the Hakansson, Leland papers with Samuelson in 1968 and early 1969?
  40. Did Arrow and Samuelson nominate Kantorovich and Koopmans while they knew of this?
  41. Did Russia put pressure at conferences in Poland attended by Weitzmann?
  42. Did you tell Israel about this in the 1970s or 1980s?
  43. Did Russia put pressure on you again in the 1990s to get IMF loans?
  44. Wasn’t this why Long Term Capital Management heavily bought Russian government bonds? They knew this history and counted on you giving the Russians the loans they wanted?
  45. Is this why Berezovsky got loans for shares? Because he was a math professor at Institute of Control Sciences and knew of this?
  46. When Putin offered you a job, wasn’t he making a jibe about this?
  47. Did you tell Israel about this when you were hired as central banker of Israel?
  48. Was the announcement of your hiring as central banker of Israel at the end of the AEA meeting delayed so that no one at the meeting could raise this issue with the press?
  49. Did you or someone discuss Paul Samuelson withdrawing from giving his talk at that meeting because they feared someone attending the meeting would ask a question on this?
  50. Did you fear the press would attend the Samuelson session and repeat this and the FBI would hear of it? Or USAO Mass read of it in the press? Such as on PBS News Hour which covers these conferences?
  51. So did you or someone discuss with you or with Samuelson that Samuelson should withdraw to avoid that person asking a question about the Samuelson plagiarism of Hakansson and Russia’s use of it and the press reporting it and the FBI and USAO Mass learning of it by this channel?  So to avoid that, you or Summers or someone asked Samuelson not to talk at the meeting?
  52. Thus you or Summers or someone acted together with Samuelson to delay, impede or prevent the FBI and USAO Mass from learning of Russia’s possible use of plagiarism kompromat to get IMF loans in the 1990s? And the role of Shleifer as conduit?
  53. And this is what President of Putin of Russia was implying when he said Anatoly Chubais was advised by CIA agents? Because Chubais handled the IMF negotiations with you and Summers for Russia?
  54. Do you agree now this is what Putin was implying when he made this statement in April 2013 after the Boston Bombing?
  55. Had you heard and others of your group heard that someone attending the AEA 2005 meeting had earlier asked for an investigation of Elsevier of related misconduct?
  56. Was that passed along to your group by Karl Shell?
  57. Did Daniel Rubinfeld also know of this at that meeting?
  58. Did that person attend the Rubinfeld session where Rubinfeld said that Elsevier was violating antitrust laws?
  59. Did your group discuss that the reason for this was that Elsevier had embarrassing info about the econ profs who run the Economic Analysis Group at the Antitrust Division of DOJ?
  60. Did the same person attend your session at that January 2005 AEA meeting?
  61. Did you stare at that person during your talk?
  62. Were you wondering if he would ask you about your plagiarism of Hakansson?
  63. That Russia used this to get IMF loans?
  64. In January 2005 the US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay case was still pending.  Were you afraid this person would raise these questions at this AEA meeting and that the USAO Mass would start investigating them?
  65. Did you have any discussions with anyone that you or that person did not want this information to become known to the FBI or USAO Mass prior to the ending of the case US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  66. Prior to your leaving for Israel?
  67. Did you make an agreement with any person to try to delay, impede or prevent any person from providing information to the FBI or USAO Mass about these matters?
  68. Did you discuss this with Israel?
  69. Did you or any person provide benefits to any person to try to delay, impede or prevent their providing info to the FBI or USAO Mass on these matters?
  70. Larry Summers later in that same month in a speech to the NBER said that women were not as good in math as men.  Was that intended to signal to women econ or law profs at Harvard, MIT or other schools that they should not go to the FBI or USAO Mass with information they knew?
  71. Did you or anyone discuss that a Harvard law prof with a Ph.D. in econ from MIT who had control of the NBER grant for law and econ research might be thinking about going to the FBI or USAO Mass?
  72. Was Summers’ statement intended to delay, impede or prevent that female law prof from going to the FBI or USAO Mass?
  73. Other women econ profs at Harvard or MIT?
  74. At the same meeting, did you hear of a Stanford professor putting up photos of a junior prof from Germany who was attractive and making comments about her appearance? (I am not completely sure this happened at this meeting, but strongly remember it that way.  I don’t know the name of the man. The Stanford prof who most fits the accent and age was not at this meeting it appears.)
  75. Of another junior prof from Germany who was going along with your group’s claims and not exposing them?
  76. Was the Stanford prof who did this taking advantage of this situation?
  77. Were Summers’ comments about women intended to put pressure on these two German female profs to keep quiet about what they knew?
  78. Did this impede, delay or prevent their providing information to the FBI or USAO Mass while US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay was pending?
  79. What about after the Boston Bombing when Putin said that Anatoly Chubais was advised by CIA agents?  Did you understand that to mean Shleifer?
  80. Was Shleifer passing info from Chubais to you and Summers that Russia knew of your plagiarism in the 1990s while you and Summers were giving them billions in IMF loans?
  81. Did Summers make his statements about women being bad in math because he feared that women were not part of the old boys club and might go to the FBI or USAO Mass with this information?
  82. Particularly the female Harvard law prof with a Ph.D. in econ from MIT?  Wasn’t Summers worried she would go to the FBI or USAO Mass with the information she knew?
  83. Didn’t you and Larry Summers conspire to obstruct justice during US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay in order to prevent this information from reaching the FBI or USAO Mass?
  84. Didn’t that conspiracy include Summer’s statement about women being bad in math to obstruct women in econ who knew of this from coming forward to the FBI and USAO Mass during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  85. US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay didn’t settle until August 2005, after you had left for Israel.  Didn’t you want to keep the FBI and USAO Mass from learning this until you were in Israel?
  86. Didn’t you and Paul Samuelson discuss that Samuelson would withdraw from speaking at this meeting so as to impede delay or obstruct the FBI and USAO Mass from learning of this during the pending case of US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  87. Have you discussed your testimony with others?
  88. Franklin Fisher received an email from the same person as who attended the January 2005 meeting in the questions above requesting Fisher to bring forward these matters. Did Franklin Fisher tell you this?
  89. Have you discussed that with others?
  90. Have you discussed with others what they might or did tell the FBI in any interviews or written documents or emails?  Did you receive copies of any such emails?
  91. Did the email sent to Franklin Fisher by the person above get forwarded to you?  Or the accompanying document?
  92. Did you discuss that the committee would probably ignore an attempt by the person to notify them of this?  (As actually happened.)
  93. Did you discuss your testimony with Peter Diamond?
  94. Did Peter Diamond get information from Hal Abelson in January 2013 that the person had made a request that MIT investigate these matters including your potential plagiarism in your Ph.D. thesis?
  95. Did you resign from your job in Israel unexpectedly because of this?
  96. According to Boris Berezovsky’s girlfriend, he was supposed to fly to Israel to meet her when he committed suicide instead.  Did Israel pass the word to Berezovsky that if he came to Israel he would be arrested for having used kompromat to pressure you to give IMF loans to Russia in the 1990s?
  97. Is the wealth of Roman Abramovich obtained as illicit gains from these loans and loans for shares?
  98. Of other oligarchs?
  99. Can the US and UK governments sue or seize the assets of Roman Abramovich or other oligarchs to recover ill gotten gains?
  100. Don’t you have a duty of loyalty as a prospective employee of the US government to tell about such a large recovery of billions of dollars?

Note that some sources incorrectly state that US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay ended in 2004.  They confuse a judge’s ruling with the actual final settlement of the case, which did not occur until August 2005 after the above meeting of the American Economics Association.

https://www.aeaweb.org/assa/2005papers.php

Jan. 7, 2:30 pm
AEA

On the 75th Anniversary of the Opportunity Cost Formulation of Comparative Advantage

Presiding: RONALD JONES, University of Rochester

PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology–1925-1950 Elizabethan Age for Pure Trade Theory

ALAN DEARDORFF, University of Michigan–How Robust is Comparative Advantage?

DANIEL BERNHOFEN and JOHN BROWN, Clark University–Comparative Advantage: From Theory to Data

Discussants: RONALD JONES, University of Rochester
WILFRED ETHIER, University of Pennsylvania
PRAVIN KRISHNA, Brown University

Samuelson canceled for ill health.

Jan. 8, 10:15 am
AEA

The Economics of the Presidential Election (Lectures)

Presiding: ROBERT HALL, Stanford University

ROBERT HALL, Stanford University

PETER DIAMOND, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

STANLEY FISCHER, International Monetary Fund

ALLEN SINAI, Decision Economics, Inc.

Jan. 9, 10:15 am
AEA

Competition Policy for Journals

Presiding: ROBERT HALL, Stanford University

AARON EDLIN and DANIEL RUBINFELD, University of California-Berkeley–Bundling Electronic and Print Journals: An Antitrust Analysis

AVIV NEVO, DANIEL RUBINFELD, University of California-Berkeley, and MARC McCABE, Georgia Tech–The Demand for Economics Journals by Academic Libraries: An Econometric Analysis

MARC McCABE, Georgia Tech, and CHRISTOPHER SNYDER, George Washington University–Open Access and Academic Journal Quality

AARON EDLIN and DANIEL RUBINFELD, University of California-Berkeley–title to be announced

Discussants: V. KERRY SMITH, North Carolina State University
ROBERT HALL, Stanford University

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4SUNM_aSsWI

Citigroup’s Fischer to Head Israel’s Central Bank (Update2)
By Jonathan Ferziger – January 9, 2005 12:26 EST

(Too late to be known to most attendees and after the sessions where it could have been raised.)

http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php

Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce
Lawrence H. Summers
Cambridge, Mass.
January 14, 2005

There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference’s papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I’ll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.

So the Harvard law female prof with the MIT Econ Ph.D. and NBER grant was being told her math was not at the level of Paul Samuelson, so she should keep quiet about what she knew or lose her grant?  The German female prof from Stanford was being told to keep quiet about photos of her being shown at the conference and her physical appearance commented on.  Who knows what was going behind the scenes.  The other female German prof being pressure to go along with this in her papers was also pressured by this?  All while US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay were pending?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/8/5/harvard-settles-suit-for-265-m/

Harvard Settles Suit For $26.5 M
Settlement brings end to five-year suit against Harvard, Shleifer
By Zachary M. Seward, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER August 5, 2005
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 1
Harvard will pay $26.5 million to the U.S. government to settle a five-year-old lawsuit that implicated two University employees, including its star economics professor, Andrei Shleifer ’82, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.

Shleifer, who is Jones professor of economics, emerged far less scathed in the settlement, agreeing to pay just $2 million. He had faced damages of up to $104 million for conspiring to defraud the government while advising a U.S.-funded program to privatize the Russian economy in the 1990s.

Jonathan Hay, another advisor to the program, will pay between $1 million and $2 million, depending on his future earnings, the government said.

As indicated above this case had a final settlement in August 2005 and not in 2004. So actions in January 2005 to delay, impede or prevent witnesses coming forward to the FBI or USAO Mass would be obstruction of justice?

The above is speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: