Archive for the 'Nils Hakansson' Category

Stanley Fischer Plagiarism Proof with citations short cut and paste version

March 19, 2014

This is a short summary of the evidence of plagiarism by Stanley Fischer. This is for cut and paste in emails or text files.

Stanley Fischer likely plagiarized Nils Hakansson in Fischer’s 1969 MIT Ph.D. thesis.

Fischer’s thesis was partly a copy of Hakansson’s 1966 thesis at UCLA and partly from a working paper of Hakansson at Yale in 1967.

The Hakanssons have set up a website with their papers.

The latter one became chapter 5 of Fischer’s thesis.

Fischer not only plagiarized Hakansson but he has prevented Hakansson getting recognition in textbooks for Hakansson’s work.

At least 4 people replicated Hakansson’s work between 1966 when Hakansson’s thesis was sent by UCLA to a working paper distribution list and 1970 when Hakansson’s paper was published late by Econometrica. This includes Paul Samuelson, David Levhari, TN Srinivasan, Stanley Fischer and depending on interpretation, Robert C. Merton.

Franklin Fisher was chairman of the Stanley Fischer thesis and at the same time editor of Econometrica. I have a letter from Econometrica in June 1969 accepting the final version of Fischer’s thesis.

In August 1969, Harvard and MIT published two papers, one by Samuelson and the other by Merton which contained versions of Hakansson’s work without

Karl Shell of MIT had the Hakansson thesis in 1966 because he chaired a session at which it was presented and that information was published in a journal.

John Shoven of SIEPR got his Ph.D. at Yale in 1973 and was likely a student in 1969 when several papers copying Hakansson’s work were published. That includes
one by David Levhari and TN Srinivasan that was done at Stanford. Hakansson was a professor at Yale up to 1969.

Fischer’s role in plagiarizing Hakansson was known then in economics and there were two economics conferences in Poland in the 1970s. At those conferences, Russia likely pressured professors from MIT and the US to help get nominations from Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow for Kantorovich to get the Nobel Prize in economics in 1975.

In 1997, in his Nobel Prize autobiography, Robert C. Merton falsely stated that Hakansson was a graduate student after 1966. This is important, because chapter 5 of Fischer’s MIT thesis is a copy of a working paper of Hakansson at Yale in 1967.

“. Ignorant of the important work underway by Nils Hakansson and Hayne Leland, then graduate students elsewhere, I attacked the problem of dynamic portfolio theory in a continuous-time framework without having the benefit of their discrete-time formulations. ”

This is false. Hakansson graduated in 1966 and was a professor at Yale at the time.

Merton and Fischer were suitemates at MIT at the time.

Franklin Fisher and Karl Shell were also suitemates as professors at the time. Shell got the Hakansson thesis in 1966 at MIT from public records.

Page 114 Growth Session chaired by Karl Shell.

Karl Shell
“my suitemate, coauthor, and friend, Frank

Stanley Fischer handled loans to Russia for the IMF.

Long Term Capital Management was a company Robert C. Merton was part of and they heavily purchased Russian government bonds as if they expected Fischer to be forced to keep helping them.

The Russian government has been publishing comments on plagiarism since the 1930s. This is a letter from Fock to the physics journal Physical Review that was published by the journal.

Edward Corson the plagiarist of Fock was later investigated by the FBI for atomic spying.

Edward Corson

Edward Corson Fock

Your search – Edward Corson Fock – did not match any documents.

Edward Corson Oppenheimer

4 results (0.34 seconds)

Thus Oppenheimer didn’t tell the FBI about the Fock Letter or plagiarism by Corson. This is despite Corson
doing this at Princeton Institute for Advanced Study just as Oppenheimer became Institute Director in 1947.

The universities did not tell the FBI about this letter from Fock during the investigation. There are other cases of Russia using these tactics.

Some of my research on this is cited in the book Nuclear Express by Thomas C. Reed a former Secretary of the Air Force and who also worked on developing nuclear weapons with Edward Teller.

Stanley Fischer has never cited his own papers out of his thesis published in the early 1970s. By 2004, his coauthor Olivier Blanchard didn’t even know what Fischer’s thesis was on. Interview of Stanley Fischer by Olivier Blanchard 2004/2005

O: Your thesis was on macro. Why?

F: My thesis was actually on lifetime portfolio choice.


F: Bob (Robert C.) Merton arrived a year after me, and we shared an office for a year.

Blanchard and Fischer wrote a book and in that book they had a section on that same work but they cited Samuelson. So Fischer didn’t tell his own coauthor about his thesis.

Page 281 of their book Lectures on Macroeconomics starts some of this discussion in equations.

Fischer’s Ph.D. thesis can be downloaded from MIT.
Essays on assets and contingent commodities.
Author: Fischer, Stanley
Citable URI:
Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics
Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date Issued: 1969

The SIEPR day is managed by John Shoven.

In 2003, Samuelson claimed it wasn’t plagiarism in his 1969 paper.

“Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking. ”

In January 1969, in a working paper Joe Stiglitz thanks Samuelson for comments on Stiglitz’s paper and also cites the Hakansson 1966 thesis in a footnote on page 7a.

University of Chicago hired Stanley Fischer in fall 1969. They had already cited the Hakansson Working Paper 101 most likely in a paper by Fama.

China has posted a copy of this Fama paper.

Fama multiperiod consumption investment decisions

Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions. Eugene F. Fama. The American Economic Review, Volume 60, Issue 1 (1970), 163-174.

Note Fama cites the UCLA working paper 101 version of Hakansson that was mimeographed and sent to a distribution list of top universities and institutes.

Fama multiperiod consumption investment decisions

In Iran

Fama multiperiod consumption investment decisions

There are Iranians in academia and Wall Street and London who know this. Also University of Paris to check out.


Fama multi period consumption investment decisions

naqvi.doc – Lahore School of Economics…/vol5-1%5CNAQVI.DOC‎
by H Naqvi – ‎Related articles
Moreover the CAPM is essentially a single period model. It is clear …… Fama, 1970, Multi-period consumption-investment decision, American Economic Review.

Fama “multi period consumption investment decisions”

Fama, E. F., Multi-period consumption-investment decisions, American. Economic Review, 1970, Vol. 60, 163–174. 45. Fang, Y., Lai, K. K. and Wang, S. Y., …


Fama multiperiod consumption investment decisions

Download (233Kb) – Universiti Utara Malaysia’im_Syed_Salim.pdf‎
2.1.3 Description of Investment Portfolio, Portfolio Optimization and Asset. Allocation . …… Fama, E. F. (1970) Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions,.


Fama multiperiod consumption investment decisions

Fama “multi period consumption investment decisions”

BIBLIOGRAPHY (JOURNALS) – Shodhganga…/10_bibliography.p…‎
by RW Rebello – ‎2013 – ‎Related articles
pp. 363 – 384. 28. Davis, J. L., Fama E. F. and French K. R. (2000), “Characteristics, Co- … Fama, E. F. (1970), “Multi-period Consumption-Investment Decisions”,.
View/Open – Goa University Library…/120/T-449.pdf?…‎
Eugene Fama (1991)4 in his paper discusses the various hypotheses on efficient …… Fama, E. F. (1970), “Multi-period Consumption-Investment Decisions”,.


fama 1970 “Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions”

5 results (0.24 seconds)
Search Results

FINANCE Return Distributions in Finance.pdf…/FINANCE%20Return%20Distributions%20in%…‎
using updated data from the study of Fama (1965), find extensive evidence that …… Fama, E. (1970) `Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions’, American …
Volume 60 Thn 1970 No 01 – Periodical – Bank Sentral Republik … › Home › About BI › Cyber Library‎
Bank Indonesia
Volume 60 Thn 1970 No 01. A Geometric Treatment of … Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions. Eugene F. Fama. On the Economic Welfare of Victims …
Volume 60 Thn 1970 No 01 – Bank Indonesia › Home › About BI › Cyber Library‎
Bank Indonesia
Volume 60 Thn 1970 No 01. A Geometric Treatment of … Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions. Eugene F. Fama. On the Economic Welfare of Victims …
Periodicals Collection – Bank Sentral Republik Indonesia › Home › About BI › Cyber Library‎
Bank Indonesia
Volume 60 Thn 1970 No 01. A Geometric Treatment of … Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions. Eugene F. Fama. On the Economic Welfare of Victims …
Volume 60 Thn 1970 No 01 – Koleksi Artikel – Bank Sentral Republik … › … › Perpustakaan_old‎Translate this page
Bank Indonesia
Perpustakaan_old. Volume 60 Thn 1970 No 01. A Geometric … Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions. Eugene F. Fama. On the Economic Welfare of …

This is hypothesis or speculation. Please include the disclaimer in any copies. This disclaimer applies to all communications even those it is left out.


Tom Sargent textbook on Dynamic Macro gives credit to Levhari Srinivasan

February 26, 2014

Thomas Sargent’s textbook on Dynamic Macroeconomic Theory gives credit to Levhari Srinivasan instead of to Nils Hakansson for the infinite horizon one risky asset multiperiod consumption savings investment decision.

Page 68 of text. Search on Levhari

The exercise manual shows this on page 6. Search on Levhari or Srinivasan in the book.

The Hakansson paper published in 1970 contains this as a special case and this was in the 1966 working paper sent to a distribution list by UCLA.

Thomas Sargent won the Nobel Prize.  He got his Ph.D. at Harvard in 1968 the same year as Hayne Leland.  Leland’s thesis was on intertemporal dynamic programming. He is now at Berkeley.   Has Sargent known Hakansson was the real inventor the entire time?

Published by Harvard University Press in 1987.

Leland O’Brien Rubinstein (LOR) made a fortune pushing portfolio insurance before the Crash of 1987.  Portfolio insurance not only did not work but many claim it helped cause the crash.

LOR Portfolio Insurance

Did Stanley Fischer also use the 1968 Hayne Leland thesis in Fischer’s 1969 MIT thesis?  Robert C. Merton claims he was unaware of the Leland thesis because according to Merton, Leland was a graduate student “at the time”.  But Merton was published in 1969, when Leland was no longer a graduate student.  Is this also to help cover for Stanley Fischer using it in Fischer’s thesis?  Merton and Fischer shared an office at MIT.

Evidence in relation to whether Stanley Fischer committed plagiarism in his MIT PhD

February 25, 2014

This post is draft and preliminary on the topic of whether Stanley Fischer committed plagiarism in his Ph.D. thesis “Essays on assets and contingent commodities.” at MIT in 1969.  Paul Samuelson, Duncan Foley and Franklin Fisher were his committee.  Miguel Sidrauski was chairman until he died in 1968, then Foley and then Fisher.

Stanley Fischer in his 1969 thesis claims that he did not see the Hakansson 1966 thesis until after he wrote the parts of his thesis relevant to the issue of copying.

Paul Samuelson also told through intermediaries to Hakansson that he had not seen Hakansson’s thesis but felt guilty.  Samuelson’s 1969 paper was part of a group of 4 papers published in 1969 linked to the MIT Econ group.

Samuelson Paul 1969 “Lifetime portfolio selection by dynamic stochastic programming” MIT Press in its journal Review of Economics & Statistics. Volume (Year): 51 (1969) Issue (Month): 3 (August) Pages: 239-46

Robert C Merton Lifetime Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty: The Continuous-Time Case.  MIT Press in its journal Review of Economics & Statistics. Volume (Year): 51 (1969) Issue (Month): 3 (August) Pages: 247-57

Optimal Savings under Uncertainty    Levhari, David    Srinivasan, T N  Review of Economic Studies. Volume (Year): 36 (1969) Issue (Month): 106 (April) Pages: 153-63.

Levhari was a coauthor with Samuelson and co-author of Franklin Fisher.

Before them all and at MIT since 1966 was Hakansson’s 1966 thesis and UCLA working paper.

Hakansson’s paper was delayed in publication at Econometrica from 1966 to 1970.  Franklin Fisher was the editor of Econometrica in 1969 and 1970.

In 2003, after over 30 years to think of his story, Samuelson wrote the following.

 Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking.

from Preface Knowledge, Information, and Expectations in Modern Macroeconomics:
In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps
Edited by Philippe Aghion, Roman Frydman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Michael Woodford. Its on line.

(See also


So in 2003, after 30 years to think of his story, Samuelson tells us this is it.  This suggests the picture that at MIT, Samuelson, Stanley Fischer, Robert C. Merton and their thesis committees including Miguel Sidrauski, Duncan Foley, Franklin Fisher, Paul Samuelson and others there such as Karl Shell and Peter Diamond were busying studying the 1962 paper by Phelps and did not know of the 1966 paper by Hakansson.

Phelps paper 1961 working paper at Cowles. “The Accumulation of Risky Capital: A Discrete-Time Sequential Utility Analysis.”

The MIT case is as follows.

  1. MIT does not acknowledge having the Hakansson 1966 paper at MIT in their statements.  So if it is shown they did have it, that shows they concealed information in their self serving claims later.
  2. Samuelson invented the intertemporal portfolio part for finite horizons himself and sketched the extension to multiple risky assets and inequality constraints.
  3. Robert C. Merton was not aware of the Hakansson or Hayne Leland 1968 Harvard thesis.
  4. Fischer invented his thesis based on the Samuelson August 1969 paper in draft form.
  5. Merton based his 1969 paper on the Samuelson 1969 paper in draft form.
  6. Stanley Fischer in his 1980s book with Blanchard gives sole credit to intertemporal portfolio choice to Samuelson not mentioning Hakansson at all.

Some problems with this are

  1. Stanley Fischer doesn’t even cite the 1962 Phelps paper in his thesis. Strange if they were all using Phelps as their starting point.  Note Samuelson was on the Fischer thesis committee, so if Samuelson thought they were using Phelps as their starting point, why didn’t he make Fischer cite Phelps in Fischer’s 1969 thesis?
  2. Karl Shell then of MIT chaired a session in 1966 in which Hakansson presented his thesis. This is in the published records of the American Economic Association (Page 114)
    . Thus in all their later statements, MIT concealed this material fact.
  3. Hakansson’s 1966 UCLA thesis was mimeographed by UCLA and sent out as a working paper to a distribution list.  Library of Congress has some records related to that working paper series.  Samuelson and likely others at MIT were probably on that list.
  4. Karl Shell and Franklin Fisher shared an office at MIT.
  5. Stanley Fischer and Robert C. Merton shared an office at MIT.
  6. Joseph Stiglitz cited the Hakansson paper in a Cowles paper dated from January 1969 and thanked Samuelson for comments in that draft.  The Samuelson paper was not published until August 1969.
  7. The Stanley Fischer thesis copies not just from the Hakansson 1966 thesis but also from another working paper of Hakansson at Yale.   Duncan Foley was from Yale and Stiglitz was at Yale.
  8. Franklin Fisher not only was the final chair of the Stanley Fischer thesis but he also was the editor of Econometrica in 1969 the date of a letter to Hakansson and 1970 the date of publication.
  9. Duncan Foley in a list of Stanley Fischer’s papers at History of Economic Thought left out the paper by Fischer that copies the working paper by Hakansson from Yale.  Foley was from Yale and was middle Chairman of the Fischer thesis.  Foley may have gotten the Hakansson paper with that part and then left that Fischer paper off the list of Fischer’s papers at HET.
  10. In various published later statements by Samuelson, Fischer, and others, the papers by Samuelson and Fischer have been admitted to as being equivalent to the Hakansson papers.
  11. Stanley Fischer does not cite the Levhari Srinivasan paper that does the infinite horizon case published in 1969.  Samuelson claims he started from the Levhari Srinivasan solution for an infinite horizon, when it was in draft form.
  12. The Stanley Fischer thesis is much longer than the Samuelson paper and had to be started at least a couple years before publication in 1969.
  13. The Fischer thesis starts from a more basic level than Samuelson and goes over the intermediate steps unlike Samuelson.
  14. The Fischer thesis doesn’t follow the Samuelson paper as a template, but instead it follows the Hakansson paper as a template.
  15. Samuelson makes some slips in his 1969 paper.  Samuelson thinks a certain one period equation in his paper is standard.  However, that equation only appears in the Hakansson paper, Fischer thesis and likely in the Hayne Leland Harvard 1968 thesis.  So Samuelson can’t think it was familiar or well known except he had seen it in these other places.
  16. Samuelson says that inequality constraints will work as an extension.  However, Samuelson knew from a prior book and a paper with McKean that inequality constraints, a type of boundary condition, usually throw off a formula solved without them.  Hakansson had shown already that in this special case you could still get a solution with them. Samuelson could only know that from Hakansson’s paper.
  17. Fischer follows closely the thesis of Hakansson in building up intertemporal portfolio theory from a new version of one period optimization first.  Prior one period portfolio theory used mean variance optimization. Before going to multiple period, it was first necessary to recast one period in terms of a new equation.  It is this equation Samuelson slips and calls familiar in his 1969 paper.
  18. Fischer published two papers while at Chicago out of his thesis. These acknowledge Hakansson’s priority.  However, in his 1980s textbook with Blanchard, Fischer only cites Samuelson, not his own papers or Hakansson or Leland.
  19. Hakansson is the person who first did intertemporal portfolio theory.  This is proven by the published record.  Yet he has never been made a Fellow of the Econometric Society or received any award for it.  Intertemporal portfolio theory is the foundation of modern finance since the 1960s including intertemporal equilibrium pricing models.
  20. In 2004, Olivier Blanchard interviewed Fischer. At that time, Blanchard didn’t even know that Fischer’s thesis was on intertemporal portfolio choice, which was part of their joint book Lectures on Macroeconomics in the 1989.  So no one told him for almost 20 years that part of his own book with Fischer was the subject of Fischer’s thesis and 2 of Fischer’s papers.  Rather amazing.
  21. Hakansson had many working papers from 1966 to 1969.  These were cited by other people at other universities.  He presented them at the 1966 Winter meeting of the Econometric Society.
  22. Merton in his Nobel Prize autobiography in 1997 incorrectly states that Hakansson was a graduate student up to 1969.  In fact, Hakansson was a prof at Yale from 1966 onwards with Stiglitz.  This is important because part of the Fischer thesis is based on a working paper by Hakansson at Yale.
  23. The Hakansson papers were what everyone in economics especially at MIT were trying to do, find the microfoundations of macro and the link between macro and finance.
  24. Textbooks since 1969 have tended to omit Hakansson’s papers at all such as Fischer’s own or have masked the priority of Hakansson.
  25. In Phelp’s Nobel Prize autobiography he is afraid to mention Hakansson and just vaguely says his own paper was the basis of work that followed.
  26. Samuelson in his quote above does not even mention that it is Hakansson.
  27. The Fischer thesis is using the Hakansson papers as a template in places.  Close textual analysis shows this. Moreover, results presented in Fischer if truly his own work and independent should have been cited by the MIT group as innovations. Instead they never give credit for any specific equation in Fischer’s thesis EVER.
  28. As mentioned, the Samuelson 1969 paper makes slips which show he was already familiar with the Hakansson paper results.
  29. The timeline of Samuelson publishing his paper in 1969 doesn’t work for the other papers.  The timeline by comparison of Samuelson, Merton and Fischer has to be Fischer first, then Samuelson and Merton.
  30. Merton’s continuous time work is a transcription from Fischer’s discrete time, not Samuelson’s discrete time.
  31. Samuelson does not make even an attempt to prove second order conditions. Hakansson did that first for intertemporal choice.  Fischer follows Hakansson and Merton follows both in the continuous time limit.
  32. No one treats Fischer’s work as the important work it would be if it was truly independent.
  33. Everyone associated with the MIT group has received awards for often trivial work while Hakansson’s work which is a foundation of modern macro and finance has never received an award.
  34. Peter Diamond got a Nobel Prize in between nominations.
  35. Peter Diamond was strangely added to the Aaron Swartz investigation by MIT after they were asked to investigate plagiarism in the Stanley Fischer thesis.
  36. Franklin Fisher was sent materials and asked to provide them to the Senate and FBI on this.  Did he?
  37. Karl Shell, Duncan Foley and Franklin Fisher were linked then and since and with Peter Diamond.  Have they given statements to the FBI?
  38. Daniel Rubinfeld was at MIT at the time, has he given a statement?  Rubinfeld is at Berkeley.
  39. Akerlof and Yellen at Berkeley have known of this for decades presumably.  Have they furnished statements to the FBI?
  40. Martin Weitzman was also at MIT at the time and later attended conferences in Poland prior to the 1975 Nobel Prize of Kantorovich.  What does he say? Did the Russians say they knew this and ask for nominations for Kantorovich from Arrow and Samuelson?
  41. Arrow strangely moved to Harvard and then back to Stanford. Was that linked to this?
  42. Marschak was on the Hakansson committee, and was a known Communist.  Was that used?
  43. Something happened in 1952 at University of Chicago and Markowitz’s thesis was delayed it appears until Cowles Commission left Chicaago.  Was that used by Samuelson?
  44. Did Russia use this to get IMF loans in the 1990s?
  45. Why does Putin keep saying that Shleifer was a CIA agent advising Anatoly Chubais? Chubais handled the IMF loans for Russia.
  46. Boris Berezovsky worked at the Institute of Control Sciences in Moscow that does the same math as in these papers. Did he have the idea to use this as pressure for IMF loans?  Were loans for shares his share?
  47. Did MIT provide information on this to the FBI or MI-5 during the 1990s? After Berezovsky’s death and before the Chechen terrorist attack in Boston?  After it?
  48. There are Berezovsky coauthors in the US and UK as well as other people who attended the conferences in Poland in the 1970s prior to the Nobel Prize for Soviet Kantorovich.  Have they been questioned?
  49. Russia has made numerous references to plagiarism in physics, math and econ starting in the 1930s to the present.  Have these ever been disclosed to the FBI by any university ever?  Their role in getting Nobel Prize nominations in physics and econ? Their role in gaining atomic secrets?
  50. Aaron Swartz was possibly investigating misconduct in his attempt to get JSTOR files.  Was this what he was interested in?  Lawrence Lessig knows Franklin Fisher and is a friend of Hal Abelson. Is that why Peter Diamond was added to the Abelson review of Swartz’s death?
  51. How many people have been pressured over this? How many gotten rewards?
  52. Dominique Strauss Kahn harassed female employees at IMF.  Was it because he knew this that he could get away with it?
  53. A Stanford professor put up photos of a Stanford junior faculty member at an econ conference and commented on her appearance to her dismay.  Was he able to get away with that because of this?  How much harassment has gone on where the professor is shielded by his knowledge of this?
  54. Junior faculty are being forced to participate in these citation games.  Are they being made to feel they are implicated? Are they being set up for another generation of pressure by Russia?
  55. China and India at a minimum seem aware of this if not involved at various times.  China especially.  The cooperation between Russia and China started in the 1940s and seems to be alive today.  This is valuable information for the FBI and MI5 to know.  The universities have concealed this.
  56. Events and investigations can be made in the US, UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, and other countries.
  57. Pakistan appears to have known of this in physics and may have used it to help avoid its role in 9/11 being made public and to life its nuclear sanctions.  India also may have used this to help get the limitations on its importing nuclear fuel lifted.  So both sides of a nuclear arms race are benefiting from this?  Even if not, why does the US support two sides in a nuclear arms race and no one say anything about it?
  58. LTCM bought Russian government bonds in the 1990s. Because it knew this?
  59. DE Shaw did the same.  They later hired Summers, nephew of Samuelson, and paid him 5 million a year.  The employees thought he was a joke and a waste of time it appears from reports.

Hakansson and his wife have set up a website with his papers. They have had to endure 30 years of the lies from MIT and the false claims of credit.  Other people have gone along with it to get Nobel Prizes.

Stanley Fischer has a victim’s website, a family that is his victim.  Has MIT told the Senate or FBI about this website?  Have they explained the inconsistencies in their story since 1969 to the present?

The above is draft and preliminary.   This is subject to revision.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: