Archive for the 'Stanley Fischer' Category

Karl Shell Darrell Duffie Stanley Fischer Moodys Senate Banking Committee

April 5, 2014

The nomination of Stanley Fischer to be vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve has a very serious problem.  If the Senate goes ahead and confirms it faces the problem that not only did Stanley Fischer plagiarize Nils Hakansson in 1969 based on the Hakansson thesis available at MIT from Karl Shell in 1966, but Darrell Duffie used a paper provided by a 3rd party to Karl Shell in the Jun Liu thesis at Stanford in 2000.

Duffie it appears knew of the earlier situation with Karl Shell and Stanley Fischer.  Moreover, Franklin Fisher was suitemate with Karl Shell at MIT in the 1960s and Franklin Fisher was chairman of the Stanley Fischer Ph.D. thesis at MIT and on the Robert C. Merton committee and was the chief editor of Econometrica in 1969 and 1970 when the Hakansson paper was published after delay and likely a referee who was involved.  That referees name should be obtained by investigators.

Duffie then used that information as leverage over Karl Shell possibly to then use the 3rd party paper to insert into the Jun Liu thesis at Stanford in 2000.  That paper was an improvement over the Hakansson Fischer Merton Samuelson papers in the 1960s and early 1970s.

If the Senate confirms Fischer, then it faces this entangled situation.  Stanford, MIT, Cornell, Univ Calif San Diego, U Cal Berkeley and other universities and Elsevier and other journals are involved.  It only takes one of them to do an investigation and conclude that there was plagiarism in either case to unravel the entire thread.  There are other cases and other universities and other professors and other witnesses.

Duffie is head of the MIS Committee of Moody’s and has extensively interacted with federal agencies on a large variety of matters and testified to Congress. He too is a public person.  Moreover, Russia has posted the document, “Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory” “Provisional Manuscript” on webpages in Russia. China, India and Iran have all done so as well.

Duffie “Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory” “Provisional Manuscript” 

If the Senate proceeds to confirm the Stanley Fischer nomination it then faces multiple investigations by universities and journals. Some of these are not in the US.  Other countries governments may also decide to investigate since these are linked to Russia’s activities in their countries from before World War II.  Also to China’s activities.

There are many Russians and Chinese at universities in the US and UK and other allied countries including Canada and Australia.  So if the Senate proceeds to confirm Stanley Fischer they face having the investigation continue in the US and in other countries.

Fischer’s time at the IMF can be investigated by other countries that have witnesses inside their borders.  Thus the Senate would be foolish to confirm Stanley Fischer.  This needs to be explained to them by the FBI and DOJ as well as other agencies such as CIA and NSA.

Nor does it stop there.  There are multiple other cases and individuals they have not even heard of and more universities and journals, many in other countries to investigate them too.  It is impossible to contain it.  Moreover, Russia and China both know this.  Putin is determined to use it or lose it. So he will go big and go soon.

The above is draft and preliminary.  Comments and corrections welcome.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

 

Advertisements

Did Stanley Fischer, Stanford SIEPR Day and Moodys Leverage help Russia take Crimea?

April 4, 2014

How much did the nomination of Stanley Fischer, Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day giving Fischer 100,000 dollars and Russia’s leverage on Stanford professor Darrell Duffie and thus Moody’s help Russia take Crimea?  Russia took Crimea because it was confident that its world view was correct and that it had leverage over the US decision makers and the West to get away with it.   Putin is an old KGB colonel and if the world is going his way in the old way he understood it, then he is confident to take Crimea while he has leverage over the US and the West.

How much in sanctions can the West impose on Russia?

The following article says not much.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-to-think-about-russia-and-the-ukraine-crisis/

By now, Germany, the UK, France, Italay, Canada, and other countries like Poland, Sweden and other former Warsaw Pact countries are aware that Russia used plagiarism kompromat on Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers (via his uncle Paul Samuelson) to help get IMF loans in the 1990s for Russia. They also know that Harvard, Shleifer, Summers, Fischer, etc. covered that up in US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.  They know that the upper levels of DOJ are complicit in this cover-up, as are other parts of the US apparat including CIA and NSA.

Furthermore, Dominique Strauss Kahn likely used this information to engage in sexual harassment at the IMF and other professors at Stanford and elsewhere have also likely used the plagiarism kompromat to engage in sexual harassment.  Larry Summer’s comments that women are not good in math at the NBER was directed at female econ and law profs who knew of this, that if they came forward they would lose their NBER grants.  NBER fronts for grants in law and economics from the federal government so that the university legal entities don’t see the grant directly from US government. Instead, the NBER does and the universities charge NBER fees for use of their facilities in the grant.  This immunizes the universities or so they hope from penalties from using NBER grants as payments to coverup and for silence during FBI background checks or investigations like US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.

Russia is aware of this.  Larry Summers was appointed without Senate approval, but nonetheless rehired, by the US government in 2009.  That was after it was public on the Internet that Russia had used this and that Summers, Shleifer and Harvard covered this up.  DE Shaw had hired Summers and paid him 5 million a year.  They had traded Russian government bonds during the 1990s and may have known of Russia’s kompromat on Summers and Stanley Fischer at that time.  LTCM also likely did and traded on it.

These firms and others including Federal Reserve and FRBNY are part of this circle of kompromat.  Moreover, New Economic School Moscow now has an employee at Federal Reserve in Washington as well as at universities and likely financial institutions.   So the kompromat network is much broader and deeper.  Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day with Stanley Fischer and Sergei Guriev was intended to frighten Federal Reserve board employees from Stanford and from New Economic School Moscow to keep quiet.

Stanford Professor Michael McFaul was US ambassador to Russia.  During the entire time he was ambassador the Duffie document that has kompromat on Duffie, Stanford and Moody’s was posted on websites in Russia.  Putin treated McFaul with contempt.  This is part of Putin’s contempt for Berezovsky and KGB need to prove he is smarter than profs like Berezovsky in manipulating and controlling profs like McFaul, Duffie, Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers.

Obama is from University of Chicago which hired Stanley Fischer after his plagiarism at MIT and knew of the plagiarism at at the time. University of Chicago helped coverup Russia’s use of plagiarism kompromat to get atomic secrets.  The use of plagiarism kompromat in econ was going on full blast at University of Chicago in the 1990s when Obama was a lecturer there.  The main cases of plagiarism in the 1990s involved University of Chicago directly or indirectly.

Bernanke’s thesis didn’t cite the Stanley Fischer papers but did cite the Paul Samuelson plagiarism paper but not the Nils Hakansson papers that were plagiarized by Stanley Fischer and Paul Samuelson.  Olivier Blanchard was coauthor with Stanley Fischer of a graduate textbook citing only the Samuelson plagiarism paper and not Nils Hakansson. Blanchard is now chief economist of the IMF.   Others at Federal Reserve are involved.

There are profs and Ph.D.s at major investment banks who know of this or who are involved in some of the plagiarism or going along with it.  They get ratings benefits from Moody’s and regulatory benefits from the Federal Reserve including low interest rates and low credit spreads.  They then fund both parties political campaigns.  This just got easier with the Supreme Court ruling lifting yet more limits on campaign finance contributions from the wealthy and connected, claiming there was no evidence of corruption presented by DOJ.  The reason being that DOJ is part of the corruption that exists of this type.

Because of DOJ complicity, Putin feels he has complete leverage on the apparatus of the state in the United States.  Putin controls the reputation of DOJ itself since it has allowed itself to become part of this.  Thus Putin as a KGB colonel feels he really has the organs of state security and prosecution under his kompromat leverage, not just a few econ profs.  He also has the Federal Reserve, at least one ratings agency, the IMF and other financial institutions that benefit from their silence and complicity.

SIEPR Agenda Day on March 14, 2014 was one day after Stanley Fischer’s testimony to the Senate Banking Committee that did not admit to this history.  This was directly during the Ukraine Crimea crisis.  Russia knew of Fischer’s appointment well in advance of its takeover of Crimea that started in late February 2014.  Moreover, Ukraine has indicated it considers the Russian FSB to be implicated in the sniper fire that immediately led to the Crimea Crisis.

At the point that Russia took over Crimea in late February and early March 2014, Stanley Fischer was concealing info from Senate Banking Committee and the public and Stanford was paying him 100,000 to do so.  This helped Stanford cover up its potential liability from Moody’s ratings benefits not just for Russia but for investment banks involved and the securities they trade and underwrite.  This includes the new generation of subprime mortgage derivatives.  Thus Stanford could be liable for trillions of dollars of losses.  So could other university partners such as Harvard and MIT, University of Chicago, Princeton, Cornell, Moody’s and investment banks.

These are the institutions that make large campaign contributions and that control the upper echelon of the Federal Reserve, SEC, FTC, DOJ Antitrust Division, and other agencies of government and regulation.  Thus Putin really does have the hidden or not so hidden kleptocracy under his kompromat umbrella.

As pointed out above, this gave Putin the feeling that he understood America’s elite and its government’s higher echelons and that he could control their reaction to his taking Crimea.  Putin was reinforced in seeing that things were the same as during the days of the Soviet Union, if not more corrupt in America.  So Putin was able to move freely in Crimea.  He felt he understood the world and that the situation was safe for him to take advantage of.  So he took Crimea without any fear.

So far, Russia has escaped serious consequences.  It has also gained in credibility and respect. The US and NATO have lost respect and confidence even among their own peoples.  In Putin’s view, this is because he has kompromat on the US and European establishments.  Plagiarism, academic, financial, regulatory and government kompromat all come together for Putin to give him leverage and insights into the US and European establishment as well as IMF and the financial institutions.

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

Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day Stanley Fischer Khan Academy Jumps the Shark

March 29, 2014

On Friday March 14, 2014, Stanford University hosted the SIEPR Economic Summit 2014 Agenda.

http://siepr.stanford.edu/SIEPR.Economic.Summit.2014.Agenda

This day honored Stanley Fischer and Salmon Khan of Khan Academy.

We can search on these two as search strings in quotes at the same time.

“Stanley Fischer” “Khan Academy”

We can do this search for prior to Jan 1, 2014 so we eliminate some of the results for after SIEPR day itself was announced with these two honorees.

“Stanley Fischer” “Khan Academy” Jan 1 2012 to Jan 1 2014

The result of this is to give hits exclusively to a certain blog.  Some other stray hits arise because of social media feeds that make older pages appear to relate to this content, but that is a reflection of SIEPR day itself and came later.

“Stanley Fischer” “Khan Academy” limited to a certain blog NMDR Jan 1 2012 to Jan 1 2014

We find results like

Stanford Misconduct at NMDR

Kaspersky Red October virus and Aaron Swartz Denial of Service Attack MIT

Several more related posts in January 2013 at NMDR are indexed here

Jan 2013 at NMDR

Stanford Misconduct

Stanford Professor J. Darrell Duffie

Moody’s

And so on.

These relate to discussion of

  1. Possible plagiarism by Stanley Fischer of Nils Hakansson
  2. Possible plagiarism by J. Darrell Duffie using a working paper that extends the Hakansson Merton results in a Stanford Ph.D. thesis of 2000 by Jun Liu.
  3. Russia’s use of these.
  4. That Russia can use these to pressure Duffie, Stanford or Moody’s for ratings benefits.
  5. That other countries can piggy back on this such as Iran or China.

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:.ru

 

subscribe.ru/archive/science.exact…/19121202.htmlTranslate this page

Dec 19, 2005 – 16.12.2005, Duffie D. Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory (provisional manuscript). 16.12.2005, Pilgrim M. Dive into Python. 16.12.2005, Tan W.M. …

Mexmat is the Department of Mechanics and Mathematics at Moscow State University. Albert Shiryaev is a professor there. He published a book in 1999 on mathematical finance that likely had help from professors in Europe. Shiryaev was in Zurich in 1997 to 1999.  Duffie visited Zurich in 1997.

Iran has since posted the document if it was not already posted.

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:.ir

At link location pad.um.ac.ir/file/view/371774

India

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:.in

And China

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript”

http://www.soudoc.com零点花园经济之星经济学资源

bbs.pinggu.org/forum.php?mod=viewthread

Feb 24, 2008 – 4 posts – ‎4 authors

中译:动态资产定价理论作者:Darrell Duffie 版次:2001 格式:pdf … 附赠:本书手稿,1999. Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory(Provisional Manuscript).

And so on.

The blog NMDR also joined the critique of Khan Academy with hashtag MTT2k

#MTT2k at NMDR

As mentioned above, searches show this blog NMDR was the only place that mentioned Stanley Fischer and Khan Academy in a meaningful way prior to January 1, 2014. It critiqued both Stanley Fischer for plagiarism, Khan Academy and the role of Russia in this.

Sergei Guriev who was at the SIEPR Day worked at New Economic School Moscow and had a Ph.D. in portfolio theory from MIPT, Phys Tech, the university that Peter Kaptisa set up. Kapitsa started Russia’s kompromat on plagiarism in the 1920s and used it to help get atomic secrets.  The universities concealed that from the FBI in the Klaus Fuchs, Edward Corson, and J. Robert Oppenheimer investigations.

So why did Stanford give an award to Khan Academy and Stanley Fischer and so focus attention back to the blog NMDR and these entries on Stanley Fischer and Duffie and Russia’s possible use of their possible plagiarism to get benefits. Those include IMF loans from Stanley Fischer and possibly rating benefits from Moody’s via Duffie and Stanford?

Why would Stanford raise these together and focus attention back to the blog NMDR?

  1. Taunt the blog in some way?
  2. Tell Khan Academy to copy the work on Peano Axioms at the blog NMDR the same way Stanford plagiarized the same person in the Jun Liu thesis under Duffie and the same way that MIT plagiarized Nils Hakansson in the Samuelson and Fischer papers.
  3. Send a message to professors who know of the Stanley Fischer plagiarism not to tell the FBI, Senate or Federal Reserve about it?
  4. Same message to Ph.D.s at Federal Reserve or Federal Reserve Banks or investment banks.  They depend on academic publications for promotion even at Fed Reserve.
  5. Tell the same groups not to provide information to the FBI, Moody’s, Securities Exchange Commission, Senate Banking Committee about the possible pressure on Duffie, Stanford and Moody’s.
  6. Pressure the author of the blog NMDR not to provide information to these.
  7. Mock the Senate Banking Committee as too stupid to figure this out.
  8. Mock the FBI as too stupid to figure this out.
  9. Mock the Department of Justice as too political or too corrupt to proceed in this case.
  10. Mock DOJ and FBI for not having discovered Russia’ use of plagiarism kompromat to get atomic secrets.
  11. Mock DOJ and FBI for not figuring Russia used this to get IMF loans in the 1990s.
  12. Mock DOJ and FBI for being deceived by Harvard and MIT in US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.
  13. Mock DOJ and FBI for being deceived in numerous federal background checks from the Atomic Bomb Project in WWII to the Stanley Fischer nomination.
  14. Mock DOJ and FBI for not understanding that Aaron Swartz may have been trying to use JSTOR to expose some of this.
  15. Mock DOJ and FBI for not understanding that Russia’s warning about Chechens before Boston Bombing was tied to Chechen resentments against Harvard and MIT and Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers over the IMF loans to Russia in the 1990s that funded the Chechen War.
  16. Send a signal to Stanley Fischer that his 100,000 dollar payment from Stanford was for him to use his influence at Federal Reserve to keep Ph.D.s at Federal Reserve from telling this to the FBI or DOJ.
  17. Frighten Russians in the US and UK who are at US universities and even at Federal Reserve not to tell this to the FBI or DOJ.
  18. Tell Stanley Fischer that is his job.
  19. Tell the Fed employees that Stanley Fischer is there to keep them quiet.
  20. Tell professors at universities that Stanley Fischer is controlling this at Fed and they are safe to keep quiet about it and not tell FBI or DOJ.
  21. Tell employees at financial institutions the same.
  22. Tell all of these people that financial institutions can get Mood’s rating benefits the same as Russia for securities they trade or underwrite if they keep the game going.
  23. Tell employees of US government, universities, and investment banks they can get publications, citations, grants, awards, etc. for going along with this and not telling the FBI or DOJ.
  24. Emphasizing that the universities got away with this in US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay so they can get away with it for the Stanley Fischer nomination.
  25. The best way to convince employees of Federal Reserve Board, universities, Moody’s, investment banks, etc. that they can get away with this and it is safe not to tell the FBI, SEC, FRB, Senate is to mock the abilities of the FBI, SEC, FRB, DOJ, and Senate to uncover this from the 1940s to the present.
  26. SIEPR Day by giving 100k to Stanley Fischer the day after he concealed info on this from Senate Banking Committee and by extension as far as profs know from the FBI and SEC and DOJ mocked them.
  27. By creating the search Khan Academy Stanley Fischer to a webpage that explained it all by someone they know is a victim of this plagiarism, they further mock the FBI, SEC, DOJ and Senate who could contact that person but apparently did not.  This shows to employees of US gov, Moody’s, universities and investment banks that the FBI, DOJ, SEC, and Senate are lazy and apathetic and can’t even do Internet searches or follow up on them.
  28. Over the years the universities, Russian intelligence and others can point out that this has been on Internet for years and FBI, DOJ, SEC, Senate did nothing about it.  That then proves they don’t have to tell them and it won’t do any good to.
  29. SIEPR Day itself and the Stanley Fischer Khan Academy are intended to be used by Stanford, MIT, Harvard, the investment banks, and Russian and Chinese intelligence to show them years from now when the FBI, DOJ, SEC, Senate have still done nothing and Stanley Fischer is appointed that they are paper tigers who can be ignored and it does no good to tell them anyhow.
  30. Thus the NMDR pages exposing Duffie, Stanford, Moody’s, MIT, Harvard, Russian intelligence, etc. do not hurt them but actually help Stanford et al.  This is why Stanford created the search link to the NDMR pages precisely so they can prove to the witnesses that it is safe to conceal this from FBI and deceive them if questioned and that it will achieve nothing to tell them, except that the person who does will have their career harmed as happened to the NDMR blogger and to Nils Hakansson.

Given that the SIEPR Day was the day after Stanley Fischer concealed information on all of this from the Senate Banking Committee, the public, Moody’s and anyone watching from SEC, we can infer that it was not targeted at the blogger NMDR or Khan Academy but to those who could provide information to the FBI and DOJ, in and out of government, to keep quiet and that it was safe to do so.

Stanford wanted to tell Federal Reserve employees that despite the Stanley Fischer plagiarism and Russia’s use of it being on the Internet since 2006 and the Duffie and Moody’s explained since 2012 and the Russian document since 2005, that the FBI and DOJ could continue to be fooled on these matters into the future and everyone who went along would profit.  They also point out that the blogger NDMR who exposed this was not getting rewarded and the same would happen to anyone who spoke up as to NMDR. Furthermore, if they spoke up, the FBI and DOJ would ignore them anyhow, so they would lose their career and the DOJ, FBI and SEC would do nothing about it anyhow.

Stanford thus intended to delay, impede or obstruct witnesses on all these matters from coming forward to the FBI, DOJ, SEC, and Senate Banking Committees.  This was an act of Stanford not of the individual professor J. Darrell Duffie who does not even run SIEPR.  That also sends the message to all these people that the coverup is bigger than Duffie it is institutional to Stanford and all the Stanford faculty who know of this stand behind the obstruction.  This is a hypothesis.

Note this also comes with the crisis with Russia which started with the Boston Bombing, the firing of CIA agents who reported to Stanford Professor Michael McFaul while ambassador to Russia in 2013 and the Ukraine and Crimea crises.  McFaul was appointed ambassador from Stanford in 2011. The Duffie document was already posted by Russia in 2006. Stanford failed to tell that to the Senate in McFaul’s confirmation or to the FBI in the McFaul background check.

 

Moody’s rates tens of trillions of dollars of securities. If Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, University of Chicago, Elsevier Science, Moody’s and related investment banks are found liable for losses of systematic good ratings, then they would all go bankrupt.  They would be ruined and likely the individual professors as well in investor lawsuits.

The above is hypotheses and speculation.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.  This is draft and preliminary. Comments and corrections are welcome.  This is subject to revision.  Please include the disclaimers in any reference to this page.

 

Obama NATO speech Ukraine Stanford MIT Harvard undermine on Russia

March 26, 2014

Obama is giving a speech to NATO March 26, 2014 on US and NATO policy towards Russia on Crimea and Ukraine.  Obama has made it US policy to isolate Russia and apply sanctions to Russia.  Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Moody’s and the major investment banks have chosen to undermine the policy of President Obama and of the United States.  Obama’s policies are supported by both parties in Congress. Thus Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Moody’s, the banks have chosen to undermine the broad policy of the US government to isolate Russia and apply sanctions to get Russia to stop on its current course as Obama says.

Obama is invoking his grandfather who fought in Patton’s army in World War II.  But Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. are undermining this policy, in effect opposing a policy that Obama equates with Patton’s army.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-and-remarks

NATO has deployed forces to the East including to the Baltic Republics which are NATO members.  Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Moody’s and the banks are thus undermining the US policy to avoid Russia invading the Baltic Republics and thus triggering a crisis with NATO.

Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day organized by John Shoven of Stanford and James Poterba of MIT to honor Stanley Fischer the day after he concealed information from the Senate Banking Committee and the Securities Exchange commission was done to undermine the US credibility with Putin.  Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. know that Russia has used plagiarism kompromat for decades to get its way.  They know Putin believes these are silver bullets that let him do what he want and have leverage over Obama from the Stanley Fischer and earlier Larry Summers’ appointments.

Stanford knows that Russia has posted kompromat on Darrell Duffie who is head of Moody’s.  They know Russia Today has gloated over Moody’s putting the US on credit watch in 2012 when Duffie was head of the MIS Committee of Moody’s with oversight over the credit rating of the United States government.

Darrell Duffie is head of the MIS Committee of Moody’s which oversees ratings of financial securities including the bonds of Russia.

http://ir.moodys.com/governance.cfm

Director since October 2008

Darrell Duffie, Ph.D., age 59, is Chairman of the MIS Committee and is a member of the Audit and Governance and Compensation Committees of the Board of Directors. He is the Dean Witter Distinguished Professor of Finance at Stanford University Graduate School of Business and has been on the finance faculty at Stanford since receiving his Ph.D. from Stanford in 1984. He has authored books and research articles on topics in finance and related fields. Dr. Duffie is a member of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York Financial Advisory Roundtable, and the Board of The Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences and is a Fellow and member of the Council of the Econometric Society and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. He is Chairman of the Market Participants Group on Reference Rate Reform.  Dr. Duffie served as a trustee of iShares Trust and a director of iShares, Inc. from 2008 to 2011 and was President of the American Finance Association in 2009.

Holdings: 23,307 shares

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:mexmat.ru

This document gives Russia leverage over Duffie by virtue of misconduct during the course of his work at Stanford, supervising a Ph.D. thesis of a Chinese student.  This was posted in 2005.  Duffie joined Moody’s MIS Committee in 2008 supposedly to be a trusted outside person who was independent.

The above is draft and preliminary. Comments and corrections welcome. This is hypotheses and speculation. Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

 

 

Sergei Guriev New Economic School Moscow Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day

March 26, 2014

Stanley Fischer testified to the Senate Banking Committee on March 13, 2014. He did not disclose that he plagiarized his Ph.D. at MIT in 1969, that he has prevented Nils Hakansson his victim from getting recognition, and that Russia knew that during the 1990s when he was in control of IMF loans to Russia at the IMF.

The following day, March 14, 2014, Stanford SIEPR paid Fischer 100,000 dollars as an award but in effect for concealing information from the public and the Securities Exchange Commission.  Stanford is potentially liable for lawsuits arising from credit misratings at Moody’s on Russian government bonds and on securities issued or traded by its partner financial institutions including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.  This could amount to billions or even trillions of dollars of liability to Stanford, MIT and these institutions.

Sergei Guriev was one of the speakers at Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day.  Guriev’s background indicates he likely was involved in analyzing the plagiarism by Stanley Fischer in the 1990s as well as in that by Stanford Professor J. Darrell Duffie now chairman of the MIS Committee of Moody’s that oversees the ratings of all financial securities in the world.  This exceeds 50 trillion dollars.

Moody’s threatened to downgrade the credit rating of the United States in September 2012 while Russia had this leverage on Duffie, Stanford and Moody’s.  Russia Today gleefully reports this.

http://rt.com/usa/us-rating-debt-deficit-898/

Russia had this leverage over the US government credit rating and that of other US financial institutions.  Sergei Guriev at the time was Rector of the New Economic School in Moscow that helps the Russian government do kompromat plagiarism analysis on Duffie, Stanford, Stanley Fischer, MIT, etc.

Sergei Guriev of the New Economic School Moscow and of Paris Science Po.

http://pages.nes.ru/sguriev/

http://pages.nes.ru/sguriev/bio.htm

http://pages.nes.ru/sguriev/CV.htm

1993 – 1994 Russian Academy of Science, Postgraduate Studies Degree: Ph.D. (Candidate of Science) in Physics and Math Thesis: “Some Mathematical Models of Saving and Investment”

Russia used kompromat on Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers via his uncle Paul Samuelson to get IMF loans in the 1990s. This thesis topic is on that same subject.

Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT)
Department of Management and Applied Mathematics
(6 year program)

MIPT was founded by Peter Kapitsa who invented the method of academic plagiarism kompromat for Russia in the 1920s. This was used to help get atomic secrets. The Max Born Spy Ring and in effect the Kapitsa Spy Ring was part of this effort. Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Cornell, Princeton, Chicago concealed info from the FBI about the Fock Letter about Corson during the FBI investigation of Edward M. Corson following the confession of Klaus Fuchs, a close friend of Corson. Corson, Fuchs, and Peierls worked for a time on separation methods for uranium during WWII in the U.S. Peierls was also investigated and the universities kept the Fock Letter and plagiarism kompromat secret from the FBI and MI5 during this investigation.

http://siepr.stanford.edu/SIEPR.Economic.Summit.2014.Agenda

Sergei Guriev, Visiting Professor, Sciences Po in Paris; Professor of Economics, New Economic School in Moscow.  ” Lunch Remarks: The State of the Russian Economy

http://siepr.stanford.edu/Sergei.Guriev

” In 1997-98, Dr. Guriev visited the Department of Economics at M.I.T. for a one-year post-doctoral placement”

This is when Russia was using plagiarism kompromat on Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers, nephew of Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow to get IMF loans.  Guriev’s thesis was on the same topic as the plagiarism by Stanley Fischer and Paul Samuelson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Guriev

He was a Morgan Stanley Professor of Economics and a Rector at the New Economic School (NES) in Moscow until he resigned on 30 April 2013 and fled to France.[1] He joined NES in 1998 focusing on research and teaching and became a full-time permanent faculty member in 1999. He became the school’s Rector in 2004.

Note at Stanford, at NES Moscow Guriev is still considered employed at NES Moscow.

Guriev interview June 2013 Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/russian-economist-sergei-guriev-putin-fears-all-opposition-a-905306.html

==

In a SPIEGEL interview, prominent Russian economist and former government adviser Sergei Guriev discusses the Kremlin’s retaliation campaign against the opposition and why he recently fled to France.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Guriev, why did you flee to France?

 

ANZEIGE

Guriev: I was under pressure for months. My wife had already predicted this development three years ago, despite the political thaw under then-President and current Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. She didn’t want our children to grow up in a country without freedom, so she decided to move to Paris. I, on the other hand, was still hopeful.

SPIEGEL: At the time, you were part of a small group of people who shaped Medvedev’s economic policy. When did you decide to flee?

Guriev: The turning point came in late April, when investigators turned up at my office with a search warrant and seized all of my email correspondence since 2008 — 45 gigabytes.

SPIEGEL: That’s the Siberian city near the Chinese border where oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky was held in a prison camp for many years. You are now accused of having been paid by Khodorkovsky to prepare an expert report that recommends his release.

Guriev: That’s ridiculous. In 2003, Moscow’s New Economic School (NES) received $50,000 (€37,500) from a partner of Khodorkovsky’s. I didn’t receive a single kopek of that money. I was a visiting professor at Princeton University at the time, and only a year later did I become the rector at NES. Besides, I prepared the expert report in 2011 for then-President Medvedev, together with colleagues.

SPIEGEL: How is the New Economic School funded?

Guriev: We are a private university. We derive our funding from tuition and donations from Russia and abroad.

SPIEGEL: Of course the Kremlin doesn’t like that. Are you disappointed that Medvedev couldn’t or wouldn’t protect you?

Guriev: I prefer not to comment on that. He’s in a difficult situation. No one seems to mention the modernization he promised anymore. (President) Vladimir Putin decides everything.

SPIEGEL: Sergey Markov, a political scientist with ties to the Kremlin, has practically accused you of treason because of your ideas on the privatization of state-owned companies, which Medvedev took up, and he has described you as the intellectual center of the opposition to Putin. Do you intend to overthrow Putin?

Guriev: Of course not. I’m an academic, not a politician.

===

http://www.nes.ru/en/about/contacts

(Note while looking at NES webpages, Firefox started to take up a huge amount of time, likely coincidence, since that problem manifests at other times as well.)

New Economic School,
Suite 1721, Nakhimovskii Prospekt 47,
117418, Moscow, Russia
(This is a short walk from the metro station Profsoyuznaya (orange line). You exit from the front of the train if you are coming from the center and then take two left turns before exiting the metro. We are located in the CEMI building)

=

http://www.nes.ru/en/about/management

RECTOR

Simeon Djankov, Professor, NES

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The governing body of the School is the Board of Directors. The Board meets bimonthly to make strategic and operational decisions. Presently, the Board of Directors includes:

 

==

Notice the President of NES is also Director of CEMI.  NES is in the CEMI building.  CEMI is a state funded entity from the Soviet Union.

http://www.mathnet.ru/php/organisation.phtml?option_lang=eng&orgid=1395

http://www.nes.ru/en/people/catalog/m/vmakarov

In 1985, the year of Perestroika, he took up his current position as the Director of the Central Economics and Mathematical Institute in Moscow.

Valery Makarov was at one of the conferences in Poland in the 1970s to put pressure on American profs using Paul Samuelson plagiarism kompromat to get nominations for the Nobel Prize in econ for Kantorovich of the USSR.  Stanley Fischer plagiarism was part of that.

Later plagiarism by Darrell Duffie at Stanford putting a paper on dynamic programming into a Stanford Ph.D. thesis was a continuation of the same subject.

Sergei Guriev was at New Economic School, when Russia posted the Duffie document that is evidence of his plagiarism.

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:.ru

This 1999 unpublished manuscript contains a citation to the paper copied in the Stanford thesis in 2000.  It shows Duffie had the paper that was copied and so is evidence of his plagiarism.

Duffie is a member of SIEPR.

http://siepr.stanford.edu/peopleprofile/2595

Victor Polterovich is another example of overlap of CEMI and NES.

http://www.nes.ru/en/people/catalog/p/vpolterovich

Head of Laboratory, Central Economics and Mathematics Institute
(CEMI), Russian Academy of Sciences;

Professor, Chairman of Academic Committee,
New Economic School (NES), Moscow.

Guriev allowed Der Spiegel to be deceived that NES was in opposition to the Russian government of Putin. In fact, NES is in the CEMI building, the same person is head of both, and the same people have done kompromat analysis on profs in the US and UK since the 1970s.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/why-putin-freed-kremlin-opponent-and-oligarch-khodorkovsky-a-940336.html

Sergei Guriev — the former rector of Moscow’s New Economic School who fled to Paris in April — was also quick to comment on the news. “Khodorkovsky was released because Russia’s image has continuously deteriorated lately,” he said. There has been widespread speculation that Guriev will also be charged in a third trial against the oligarch.

Der Spiegel seems to work with Guriev to burnish his credibility as a Kremlin dissident.  But as we saw above with NES, CEMI, this involves deception of the readers.

==

Stanford seems to have provided material assistance to Russia at the SIEPR Agenda Day for Stanley Fischer.  There is an NES graduate at the Federal Reserve Board in Washington D.C.  They are likely afraid she will spill the beans to the FBI and Senate Banking Committee and the Securities Exchange Commission about  Stanley Fischer, MIT, Stanford, Duffie, and the role that NES plays in this.

Darrell Duffie is head of the MIS Committee of Moody’s which oversees ratings of financial securities including the bonds of Russia.

http://ir.moodys.com/governance.cfm

Director since October 2008

Darrell Duffie, Ph.D., age 59, is Chairman of the MIS Committee and is a member of the Audit and Governance and Compensation Committees of the Board of Directors. He is the Dean Witter Distinguished Professor of Finance at Stanford University Graduate School of Business and has been on the finance faculty at Stanford since receiving his Ph.D. from Stanford in 1984. He has authored books and research articles on topics in finance and related fields. Dr. Duffie is a member of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York Financial Advisory Roundtable, and the Board of The Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences and is a Fellow and member of the Council of the Econometric Society and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. He is Chairman of the Market Participants Group on Reference Rate Reform.  Dr. Duffie served as a trustee of iShares Trust and a director of iShares, Inc. from 2008 to 2011 and was President of the American Finance Association in 2009.

Holdings: 23,307 shares

Stanford has been requested to investigate this and to notify Moody’s, Securities Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve Board, Senate Banking Committee and FBI.  So far they have not replied to these requests.

Obama spoke at NES Moscow in 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-new-economic-school-graduation

Stanford Professor Michael McFaul was US ambassador to Russia and spoke at NES Moscow in 2012.

http://moscow.usembassy.gov/amb-nes060712.html

The Duffie provisional manuscript was posted on the Internet in 2005 and so was posted at the time of these speeches. Stanford Professor Darrell Duffie was head of the MIS Committee at the time of the McFaul speech in 2012 and thus had control of the credit ratings of Russia and the US government.

As stated, a former NES person is at the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. That person could blow the whistle on all of them.  This is why they have to appoint Stanley Fischer Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. This is why Stanford at SIEPR Agenda Day paid Stanley Fischer 100,000 for concealing information on this from the Senate Banking Committee and the Securities Exchange Commission as well as the Federal Reserve Board and the FBI.

duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript” site:mexmat.ru

The above is draft and preliminary.  Comments and corrections welcome. The above is hypotheses and speculation on issues of public interest.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

 

 

 

 

 

Stanley Fischer should withdrawal during the MH370 fixation

March 23, 2014

Now is the perfect time for Stanley Fischer to withdrawal his name for Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman.  The media are fixated on either covering MH370 or chastising those who cover Malaysian Airlines MH370.  MH370 also could suddenly fizzle if it is found in the ocean or become worse if attention focuses on a country like Pakistan or Iran or Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, or Malaysia.

Those countries may be aware of the Stanley Fischer situation and that it gives them leverage.  Even though it is in the open to a large extent, most of the public is unaware of it.  A country could change that.  They can also bring it up at the UN or an international human rights tribunal by tying it to the genocide of the Chechen people that they blame on IMF loans under Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers.

Some profs including Dominique Strauss-Kahn seem to use plagiarism and Russia’s kompromat as an excuse to engage in sexual harassment.  This is likely widespread.  That could create a major storm at IMF, World Bank and the Federal Reserve Board.

So who is still pushing Stanley Fischer?  Possibilities are

  1. Stanley Fischer.
  2. Janet Yellen.
  3. Larry Summers.
  4. Barack Obama.
  5. Bill Clinton.
  6. Robert Rubin.

The one most likely to not recognize that the Stanley Fischer nomination is best ended gently is Janet Yellen.  She loses the most face from it, and her position might become shaky.  She was at Berkeley and between her and George Akerlof, they not only likely knew about Stanley Fischer’s plagiarism of their co-Berkeley prof Nils Hakansson but played a part in keeping him afraid enough not to come forward.  For that they received rewards including the Nobel Prize in economics for Akerlof and the Fed Chairmanship for Yellen.

Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive Yellen.

This is hypotheses speculation or opinion. Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

 

How can a university withdraw from the Stanley Fischer conspiracy?

March 22, 2014

What does a university need to do to withdraw from the conspiracy related to the Stanley Fischer MIT Ph.D. thesis plagiarism and subsequent related acts?

It has to acknowledge each of the acts and their inter-related nature.

A lie can not withdraw from the conspiracy, that simply is an act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

If universities lie when trying to withdraw from the conspiracy they simply commit further acts in furtherance of it.

A university can’t lie to the FBI, Securities Exchange Committee, Federal Reserve Board, Economic Analysis Group of the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, FTC, to a federal judge, to the Senate Banking Committee, to investors, to donors, to alumni, or to the public and thereby withdraw from the conspiracy.

What does MIT have to do?

  1. Revoke the Stanley Fischer MIT 1969 Ph.D. thesis as intentional plagiarism of Nils Hakansson.
  2. Acknowledge that Russia put pressure on MIT profs to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize.
  3. Acknowledge the same for Kapitza in 1978 for the Nobel Prize in physics.
  4. Acknowledge these were linked.
  5. Acknowledge the universities withheld information from the FBI starting with the Manhattan project.
  6. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI investigation of Edward Corson.
  7. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI investigation of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
  8. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI investigation of Andrei Shleifer, Larry Summers and Harvard.
  9. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI investigation of Aaron Schwartz in particular that he might have been trying to get JSTOR files that can be used to investigate the above.
  10. Acknowledge they withheld information from the FBI background check of Stanley Fischer.
  11. Acknowledge they have subjected people to fear, and provide a list, to not provide information on this to the FBI, SEC, Senate, DOJ, etc.
  12. Acknowledge that SIEPR Agenda Day March 14, 2014 was intended to signal to potential witnesses not to provide information to the FBI, Federal Reserve, SEC, and Senate Banking Committee relating to Stanley Fischer and linked acts in the conspiracy.

Stanford, Harvard, University of Chicago, Berkeley, Princeton, Cornell and other universities have to do likewise.  So do many financial institutions that are involved.

 

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

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.

http://www.hakansson.com/

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/Dissertation.pdf

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/papers/optimal69.pdf

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
citation.

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.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1997/merton-bio.html

“. 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.

http://www.aeaweb.org/Annual_Meeting/assa_programs/ASSA_1966.pdf

Page 114 Growth Session chaired by Karl Shell.

http://www.karlshell.com/pdfs/md.pdf

Karl Shell
“my suitemate, coauthor, and friend, Frank
Fisher.”

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.

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.72.737

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

Edward Corson site:fbi.gov

Edward Corson Fock site:fbi.gov

Your search – Edward Corson Fock site:fbi.gov – did not match any documents.

Edward Corson Oppenheimer site:fbi.gov

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.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/104983/thomas-c-reed.aspx

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/klaus-fuchs/

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/61/9/10.1063/1.2982122

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.

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/63728 Interview of Stanley Fischer by Olivier Blanchard 2004/2005

http://archive.org/stream/interviewofstanl00blan/interviewofstanl00blan_djvu.txt

O: Your thesis was on macro. Why?

F: My thesis was actually on lifetime portfolio choice.

also

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.

http://books.google.com/books?id=j_zs7htz9moC&pg=PA275&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fischer’s Ph.D. thesis can be downloaded from MIT.

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13873
Essays on assets and contingent commodities.
Author: Fischer, Stanley
Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13873
Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics
Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date Issued: 1969

The SIEPR day is managed by John Shoven.

http://siepr.stanford.edu/SIEPR.Economic.Summit.2014.Agenda

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

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i1_7521.html

“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.

http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cd/d02b/d0262.pdf

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 site:.cn

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 site:.ru

In Iran

Fama multiperiod consumption investment decisions site:.ir

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

Pakistan

Fama multi period consumption investment decisions site:.pk

[DOC]
naqvi.doc – Lahore School of Economics
http://www.lahoreschoolofeconomics.edu.pk/…/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” site:.pk

Untitled
lhrgateway.nu.edu.pk/articles/3540779256.pdf‎
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., …

Malaysia

Fama multiperiod consumption investment decisions site:.my

Download (233Kb) – Universiti Utara Malaysia
etd.uum.edu.my/2918/2/1.Syed_Mohd_Na’im_Syed_Salim.pdf‎
2.1.3 Description of Investment Portfolio, Portfolio Optimization and Asset. Allocation . …… Fama, E. F. (1970) Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions,.

India

Fama multiperiod consumption investment decisions site:.in

Fama “multi period consumption investment decisions” site:ac.in

BIBLIOGRAPHY (JOURNALS) – Shodhganga
shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/12549/…/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”,.
[PDF]
View/Open – Goa University Library
library.unigoa.ac.in:8081/xmlui/bitstream/handle/…/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”,.

Indonesia

fama 1970 “Multiperiod Consumption-Investment Decisions” site:.id

5 results (0.24 seconds)
Search Results

[PDF]
FINANCE Return Distributions in Finance.pdf
http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/…/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 …
http://www.bi.go.id › 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
http://www.bi.go.id › 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
http://www.bi.go.id › 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 …
http://www.bi.go.id › … › 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.

Stanley Fischer hearing March 13 2014 Vice Chairman Federal Reserve Board

March 13, 2014

The hearing of Stanley Fischer to be vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is being held March 13, 2014.  The hearing is by the Senate Banking Committee with Tim Johnson as chairman and Mike Crapo as ranking member.

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

Witnesses

Panel 1

  • Dr. Stanley Fischer [view testimony]
    to be a Member and Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
  • The Honorable Jerome H. Powell [view testimony]
    to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
  • The Honorable Lael Brainard [view testimony]
    to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
  • Mr. Gustavo Velasquez Aguilar [view testimony]
    to be an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
  • Mr. J. Mark McWatters [view testimony]
    to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration Board
    National Credit Union Administration Board

The hearing is only 2 hours for 4 people so it is a formality.

Stanley Fischer opening statement.

No apology for plagiarizing Nils Hakansson or not citing him in his March 21, 1989 book with Olivier Blanchard, Lectures on Macroeconomics. There he gave sole credit for multiple period portfolio and consumption and savings decisions to Paul Samuelson and none to Nils Hakansson who actually created it. Hakansson is still not a Fellow of the Econometric Society.

Fischer is talking down to the committee giving a talk that sounds like he is part of the permanent rulers of the financial regulatory system. He uses acronyms that he knows most people can’t understand. This is to show he is a longtime insider at the top of regulating the financial system everywhere in the world.

Stanley Fischer thinks of himself as the top financial regulator expert in the world.

Stanley Fischer witness Franklin Fisher MIT 3rd thesis chairman

March 3, 2014

Franklin M. Fisher was the 3rd thesis chairman of Stanley Fischer.  The first was Miguel Sidrauski who died in 1968. The second was Duncan K. Foley.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/stanley-fischer-witness-duncan-k-foley-new-school-new-york/

This post considers the hypothesis that Stanley Fischer plagiarized Nils Hakansson in 1969 in Fischer’s MIT Ph.D. thesis. Fischer claimed he saw Hakansson’s 1966 thesis late, after writing relevant sections of Fischer’s thesis. Fischer didn’t comment then about Hakansson’s uncertain lives working paper at Yale which corresponded to chapter 5 of Fischer’s thesis.

http://www.hakansson.com/

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/papers.htm

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/nils_bio.htm

http://www.hakansson.com/joyce/joyce_bio.htm

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/Dissertation.pdf

Optimal Investment and Consumption Strategies Under Risk, an Uncertain Lifetime, and Insurance,” International Economic Review, 10, October 1969, 443-466.

Optimal Investment and Consumption Strategies Under Risk for a Class of Utility Functions,” Econometrica, 38, September 1970, 587-607; reprinted in Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance (eds. W. T. Ziemba and R. G. Vickson), Academic Press, 1975, 525-545.

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/63728 Interview of Stanley Fischer by Olivier Blanchard 2004/2005

http://search-id.com/d/dspace.mit.edu

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13873 Essays on assets and contingent commodities.

Author: Fischer, Stanley
Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics
Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date Issued: 1969

Description: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics. Thesis. 1969. Ph.D.Vita.Bibliography: leaves 193-195

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13873?show=full

dc.contributor.advisor Franklin M. Fisher. en_US
dc.contributor.author Fischer, Stanley en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2005-08-11T12:00:00Z en_US
dc.date.available 2005-08-11T12:00:00Z en_US
dc.date.issued 1969 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13873
dc.description Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics. Thesis. 1969. Ph.D. en_US
dc.description Vita. en_US
dc.description Bibliography: leaves 193-195. en_US
dc.format.extent vii, 196 [i.e. 197] leaves en_US
dc.format.extent 27933841 bytes

Questions to ask Franklin M. Fisher

  1. Karl Shell had a copy of Hakansson’s thesis at MIT in 1966 from public records.  You shared an office with Shell while he was at MIT through 1968.  Did you have a copy of the Hakansson thesis at that time?
  2. Did you talk to Shell about it?
  3. Was it a major breakthrough?
  4. You became editor of Econometrica which was going slow on publishing Hakansson’s paper. Who was the referee for the Hakansson paper at Econometrica?
  5. Why was the Hakansson paper published so late?
  6. In a letter dated June 4, 1969 from Econometrica to Hakansson, the final version of his paper was accepted.  That letter is signed by Jacques E. Dreze, Co-editor.  Did you see that letter prior to its being sent?
  7. Was there any change in referee?
  8. What were the referee’s objections?
  9. Why were similar objections not made to the Samuelson and Merton papers published in August 1969 at the MIT/Harvard journal Review of Economics and Statistics?
  10. Doesn’t Fischer’s thesis follow Hakansson’s thesis as a template and not Samuelson’s discrete time 1969 paper?
  11. For example, Hakansson does second order conditions for an optimum as does Fischer, but Samuelson does not.
  12. Did you see a copy of Hakansson’s uncertain life paper prior to the conclusion of Fischer’s thesis in 1969?
  13. Who was your office mate after Karl Shell left?
  14. In the published paper version of Fischer’s thesis he acknowledges that what is chapter 5 is equivalent to Hakansson’s paper “Optimum Investment and Consumption Strategies under Risk, an Uncertain Lifetime, and Insurance”, International Economic Review, 10 Octoboer 1969 443-466.
  15. Fischer’s paper is “A Life Cycle Model of Life Insurance Purchases,” International Economic Review, (February 1973), 274-77.  This is chapter 5 of his thesis. http://www.iie.com/fischer/cv.html http://www.nber.org/vitae/vita191.htm
  16. When did you first learn of the Hakansson IER paper?
  17. Did Duncan Foley have a copy from Yale?
  18. Did Martin Weitzman?
  19. Did Joseph Stiglitz?
  20. Did Robert C. Merton?
  21. Did Paul A. Samuelson?
  22. Did Peter Diamond?
  23. Were you surprised when you saw it?
  24. Did you discuss this with Duncan Foley?
  25. With Karl Shell?
  26. Who was referee on the Hakansson IER paper?  Fischer’s?
  27. Did Russia learn of this in early 1970s?
  28. Was this used by Russia to pressure Nobel Prize nominations in econ for Kantorovich of the USSR?
  29. How did Koopmans at Yale get onto the same Nobel Prize?
  30. Was Milton Friedman upset that Koopmans got the prize ahead of Friedman?
  31. Was Marschak known to be a communist?  Marschak was on Hakansson’s committee. Was this used as leverage to plagiarize him?
  32. Was Koopmans rumored to be one?  Also used as leverage to plagiarize Hakansson?
  33. What happened at University of Chicago in 1952 involving Econometrica and these people?  Two people had to resign and the editorial office was moved to Northwestern.  What happened?
  34. Did this have to do with the Markowitz paper and thesis?
  35. Markowitz had to wait for his Ph.D. until Cowles left Chicago in 1955.  He got it the quarter after Cowles left.  Is this linked?
  36. Was this known to Samuelson? He was President of the Econometric Society that year.
  37. Was that Samuelson’s leverage to plagiarize Hakansson in his 1969 paper?
  38. Did Samuelson’s paper come after the Stanley Fischer thesis?
  39. Did Robert C. Merton and Fischer work together as office mates with Fischer doing discrete time and Merton continuous time?
  40. Did Samuelson learn of this and want to provide cover for Robert C. Merton because he admired Robert K. Merton?
  41. Duncan Foley has described Miguel Sidrauski, the first chairman of the Fischer thesis as leftist and his wife Martha as even more life and linked to people who disappeared in Argentina after the 1960s.  What do you know of them?
  42. Miguel Sidrauski and Fischer bonded closely?
  43. They were both Zionists we learn from Foley and from the Blanchard interview. Did they bond on that?
  44. Did Miguel Sidrauski let Fischer plagiarize Hakansson?
  45. Did the Sidrauskis have a relation with Russia that you ever heard?
  46. Was the Fischer plagiarism a ploy to ensnare MIT and Samuelson to pressure Samuelson to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the econ prize?
  47. Was Sidrauski in on it? The source?
  48. Duncan Foley is a type of Marxist.  What did he know of this if anything?
  49. Who told Russia? Or did Russia figure it out?
  50. Did Russia tell Martin Weitzman they knew about it at an econ conference in Poland?
  51. Was he a messenger to Samuelson?
  52. Was Andrei Shleifer a similar messenger later from Anatoly Chubais and Russia to Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer to get IMF loans?
  53. Did LTCM and DE Shaw trade Russian government bonds in the 1990s knowing Russia was using this as leverage?
  54. Was this told to USAO Mass during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay from 1997 to 2005?
  55. During Aaron Swartz investigation? One can use JSTOR files to help discover or prove this.
  56. Does Russia have a complete copy of all the JSTOR files in Russia?
  57. Was this ever told to the FBI during any investigation or background check?
  58. Did anyone tell this to Israel?  When?
  59. Did Israel do a background check on Fischer when it hired him as central banker in 2005?
  60. Were you questioned by Israel then?
  61. Did Israel already know of this?
  62. Did David Levhari tell them?  Did you?
  63. Did you tell the US after you learned Israel knew of it?
  64. Did you explicitly tell Israel that Fischer plagiarized Hakansson?
  65. Did you say Robert C. Merton was in on it?
  66. Did you say Paul Samuelson was?
  67. Did either of those talk to Israel at that time on this?
  68. Did they repeat what they told Israel to the FBI?
  69. What about Larry Summers?  Andrei Shleifer?
  70. Hay got a Ph.D. in math from Steklov Institute c. 2003. Did you know of this? Was it to keep Hay from telling what he knew to the FBI to get a plea deal during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  71. Did Summers protect Shleifer during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay because Shleifer was the conduit for this from Chubais? Knew of it?
  72. Did others know?
  73. Did Robert Vishny or Jose Scheinkman help Shleifer?
  74. What did Daniel Rubinfeld know of this?
  75. Who knew what when as of the ASSA January 2005 meeting in Philadelphia?
  76. Were you there?
  77. Who talked to Daniel Rubinfeld?
  78. What did Rubinfeld know?
  79. You, Schmalansee and Rubinfeld were all at MIT in 1969 and were all involved in US v Microsoft on both sides.  Did you tell any lawyer of this?  The judge?
  80. Lawrence Lessig was special master on that case.  Did he learn of it then?  Later?
  81. Did Aaron Swartz learn of this from Lessig?  From the Internet?
  82. Was Aaron Swartz investigating this when he downloaded the JSTOR files?
  83. Did Swartz commit suicide to protect someone before trial?  Someone who was going to come forward?
  84. Peter Diamond was added to the Swartz committee after someone asked MIT to investigate these matters as part of the Swartz investigation in 2013.  Did you hear of any discussion of this?
  85. Abelson is a friend of Lessig.  Was Lessig being protected?
  86. Was this told to the FBI in the background check for Stanley Fischer?
  87. How much of this does Russia know?
  88. Who has Russia approached?
  89. How much do China, India, Pakistan, and Iran know about this?  Have they approached anyone.
  90. Olivier Blanchard did not know what Stanley Fischer’s thesis was on in the 2004/2005 interview linked above.  How is that possible?  Part of their book together was on the same subject. No one at MIT told Blanchard?
  91. Does this show Fischer did plagiarize Hakansson?
  92. Robert C. Merton states in his Nobel Prize autobiography that Hakansson and Hayne Leland were graduates students elsewhere.  Hakansson got his Ph.D. in 1966 and Leland in 1968. Merton’s paper was published in 1969.  So they were not grad students then.  Was this to cover up that Hakansson went to Yale and the working paper version of Hakansson’s IER paper went to MIT to the office Merton and Fischer shared together while Merton did the continuous time version of Fischer’s discrete time knock off of Hakansson?
  93. Neither Merton nor Fischer followed Samuelson’s 1969 paper as a template?
  94. In 2003, Samuelson wrote it was not plagiarism.  Did Karl Shell tell Samuelson that someone asked for an investigation of a related plagiarism case in 2002 to Elsevier?
  95. Should the DOJ Antitrust Division have approved the Elsevier Academic Press merger?
  96. Daniel Rubinfeld has written that Elsevier’s big bundle violates the antitrust laws.  Do you agree?
  97. Is the role of Elsevier in this and the role of econ Ph.D.’s and econ profs at DOJ Antitrust Division Economic Analysis Group the reason that Elsevier can violate the antitrust laws?  Others?  Do investment banks know this?  Does Goldman Sachs?
  98. Do they get regulatory benefits?
  99. Bernanke’s thesis at MIT under Fischer doesn’t cite Fischer’s thesis or papers or Hakansson but does cite Samuelson 1969.  Bernanke knew this?
  100. Did Bernanke bailout the banks because they knew this?
  101. Did the Fed help bailout LTCM in 1998 because of this?
  102. No one told the FBI all this time?
  103. Does Russia know all this?
  104. Is this why Putin feels so confident he can invade Crimea and get away with it?
  105. Did Obama know this when he hired Larry Summers?  Did anyone tell the FBI then?
  106. Did anyone tell the FBI this time about Stanley Fischer?
  107. Does Obama know it anyhow?
  108. Does Putin have this as leverage over Obama?
  109. What about China, India, Pakistan, and Iran?  Others?

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

%d bloggers like this: