The Money Mustache Community

Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: irastache on May 17, 2013, 09:19:21 AM

Title: Long-Term Returns
Post by: irastache on May 17, 2013, 09:19:21 AM
[MOD EDIT: Everest Wealth Management has threatened the MMM blog with legal action due to this thread.  See discussion here (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/everest-wealth-management-threatens-mmm-blog-with-legal-action/). /END EDIT]

I want to share a link for an excellent financial blog: Long-Term Returns http://www.longtermreturns.com/ (http://www.longtermreturns.com/)

You might start at the first post and read, just like MMM or, two introductory posts that say it all

http://www.longtermreturns.com/p/how-to-invest.html (http://www.longtermreturns.com/p/how-to-invest.html)
http://www.longtermreturns.com/2012/03/selecting-investment-strategy.html  (http://www.longtermreturns.com/2012/03/selecting-investment-strategy.html)

Why is this one of the best investing blogs?
Short: The author admits blogging requires posts but the answers all already posted in the above links.
Honest: "It is extremely difficult to beat the market returns in the long term." "It is trivially easy to obtain market-level returns through disciplined passive index investing. This site will help you estimate what those market returns (and associated risks) are likely to be so you can make educated decision on how to invest"

There are some excellent fund reviews and advice in the archives. If you read through the blog, just like MMM, I think you will answer many questions.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: bkru21 on May 17, 2013, 09:44:24 AM
I've just started reading it as well. It's a great blog, has some really good advice.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on May 17, 2013, 09:47:06 AM
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: Joet on May 17, 2013, 10:49:57 AM
also not sure if it's in that article but it IS becoming a little more difficult to 'make market level returns' for a growing reason:

1] Fewer companies are going public, more companies are going private

as an example of this, vanguards 'total stock market index' US for around 2,000 had approx 9,000 companies. Today? 4,000 and change.

Has the US economy fundamentally changed somewhat? Yes, more towards private equity. Is there anything you can do about it? No, not really.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: matchewed on May 17, 2013, 10:53:01 AM
also not sure if it's in that article but it IS becoming a little more difficult to 'make market level returns' for a growing reason:

1] Fewer companies are going public, more companies are going private

as an example of this, vanguards 'total stock market index' US for around 2,000 had approx 9,000 companies. Today? 4,000 and change.

Has the US economy fundamentally changed somewhat? Yes, more towards private equity. Is there anything you can do about it? No, not really.


I'm a bit confused as to that statement Joet. Isn't the market the market regardless of the number of businesses? So if I'm looking to match market returns and I invest in a broad index which mirrors the entire market what does the number of businesses have to do with the return? Isn't my goal of making market level returns guaranteed by investing in the entire market?
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: bkru21 on May 17, 2013, 11:06:34 AM
Matchewed, I think has to do with the theory there is greater strength in numbers. If there are fewer companies on the market, you have a greater risk of lower returns as there are fewer stronger companies to balance it out. I could be oversimplfying this idea though.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on May 17, 2013, 11:25:33 AM
also not sure if it's in that article but it IS becoming a little more difficult to 'make market level returns' for a growing reason:

1] Fewer companies are going public, more companies are going private

as an example of this, vanguards 'total stock market index' US for around 2,000 had approx 9,000 companies. Today? 4,000 and change.

Has the US economy fundamentally changed somewhat? Yes, more towards private equity. Is there anything you can do about it? No, not really.


I'm a bit confused as to that statement Joet. Isn't the market the market regardless of the number of businesses? So if I'm looking to match market returns and I invest in a broad index which mirrors the entire market what does the number of businesses have to do with the return? Isn't my goal of making market level returns guaranteed by investing in the entire market?

Yes.  Those other companies are outside the market.  So you will still make market returns, you just may not make the average  return of all companies (public and private), if you think private companies are more successful.  Either way you will still make market returns minus fees/expenses with index funds.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: Joet on May 17, 2013, 11:39:05 AM
Right, if anything 'ultrasmall' has more or less disappeared. If I understand [an oversimplification] of what my VC friends tell me the trend is these 50-250m companies that would have IPO'd 10+ years ago presently receive private equity funding/angel investors/etc and are often simply directly required by a megaco.

So perhaps it's not a big a deal as I make it, and perhaps the risk picture has actually improved for investors. AKA fewer webvan's and pets.com's vs more seasoned companies that do finally IPO. But the 'small/value' growth premium may be disappearing a bit in the market as well. But if you do invest in the broad indexes you get exposure to these megacos, and the investment banks [goldman, JP, etc] that are mostly responsible for bringing these guys to market. And if its a private VC firm well when that company finally gets aquired its part of a megaco thats already in the indexes anyways.

again, this is more or less just noise/ramblings and there isnt much you can do about it.

Wish I could find the stat on it, Vanguards total stock market index had ~8-9K and change companies in ~2000 vs 4k ish today

But if we want to get right down to it, the S&P 500 represents something like 75-80% of the total market cap of the US publicly traded companies. So we're splitting hairs.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: matchewed on May 17, 2013, 11:48:24 AM
Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: secondcor521 on May 17, 2013, 12:55:41 PM
@Joet,

Nowadays, VTSMX samples the broader total market.  The 3,278 companies they own now are selected to match the broader market in key indicators such as market capitalization, industry affiliation, and so on.  I believe the reason they do this is that for a large fund, owning the smaller companies can result in excess trading costs and affect the market prices of those smaller stocks.  Owning a large representative sample still gets you the market returns without these other negatives.

I don't know how many stocks it owned back in 2000, but it is possible that back then they were trying to buy all of the stocks in the index back then.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on May 18, 2013, 11:41:30 PM
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.

Follow up: I spent several hours reading this blog today, and have a bunch more tabs open to read later.

LOVE it.  Thanks so much for sharing.

This will be the place I direct people if they make it through JLCollins' advice, and want to learn more on index investing (and Joshua Kennon's blog if they want to learn more about valuing individual companies).

This is high on my list of investing blogs though - detailed, in-depth, yet simple, conversational tone that is accessible to anyone.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: irastache on May 20, 2013, 01:26:56 PM
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.

Follow up: I spent several hours reading this blog today, and have a bunch more tabs open to read later.

LOVE it.  Thanks so much for sharing.

This will be the place I direct people if they make it through JLCollins' advice, and want to learn more on index investing (and Joshua Kennon's blog if they want to learn more about valuing individual companies).

This is high on my list of investing blogs though - detailed, in-depth, yet simple, conversational tone that is accessible to anyone.

Very glad this is helpful. I agree -- the advice is so good you could pay money for it and sadly the advice people do pay money for is usually much worse. Likewise the advise from most paid writers in the financial press.

There is not a day in the financial press that I don't see bad ideas that could be disproved using things I learned on the LTR blog.

Active trading strategies -- no!
Market timing schemes -- keep them!
Tactical asset allocation -- oh no!
the list could go on...

Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: savingtofreedom on May 21, 2013, 09:47:15 PM
This is a great website - thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: julieanderson on May 29, 2013, 03:34:14 PM
Thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: bkru21 on June 25, 2013, 12:45:17 PM
Does anyone know what happened to this blog? Seems to have just disappeared.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on June 25, 2013, 12:52:00 PM
Does anyone know what happened to this blog? Seems to have just disappeared.

How odd, I am getting a 404 as well.

It was just updated a day or two ago, so hopefully this is a temporary glitch.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't back up and running in a few days.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: yolfer on June 25, 2013, 03:34:33 PM
I'm less optimistic. The LTR twitter account is dead too:

https://twitter.com/LongTermReturns

And those don't just disappear by accident like a 404 on a webpage. Someone had to close the twitter account on purpose.

Whois isn't showing any contact info, and the only contact email listed on (a cached copy) of the site is Mike@LongTermReturns.com which might not work if the doman is down. I tried sending him an email anyway.

Fingers crossed. This is/was one of my favorite blogs.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on June 25, 2013, 03:37:13 PM
Ugh.  That bums me out.

His last update just a few days ago didn't give any indication of anything like that.

A decent amount of it is archived here:
web.archive.org/web/*/Longtermreturns.com
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: Allknowing305 on June 26, 2013, 02:25:16 PM
The board and twitter went down when "Mike" (or whoever runs that blog) were notified of a federal law suit alleging slander, libelous statements, and false allegations.  Word has it his identity will be known soon...
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: yolfer on June 26, 2013, 03:04:05 PM
The board and twitter went down when "Mike" (or whoever runs that blog) were notified of a federal law suit alleging slander, libelous statements, and false allegations.  Word has it his identity will be known soon...

Wha?!  Where'd you hear about this? I can't find anything about it online.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on June 26, 2013, 03:07:00 PM
The board and twitter went down when "Mike" (or whoever runs that blog) were notified of a federal law suit alleging slander, libelous statements, and false allegations.  Word has it his identity will be known soon...

That is incredibly unfortunate, if true.

The guy was writing brilliant stuff.

Would appreciate you keeping us updated, if you find out more.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: Eric on June 26, 2013, 04:45:38 PM
The board and twitter went down when "Mike" (or whoever runs that blog) were notified of a federal law suit alleging slander, libelous statements, and false allegations.  Word has it his identity will be known soon...

Wha?!  Where'd you hear about this? I can't find anything about it online.

He edited that statement.  Previously, it sounded like it was his company filing the suit.  I'm assuming he knows from first hand knowledge.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: Allknowing305 on June 26, 2013, 07:18:37 PM
All that matters is that in todays age dont think that because you sit behind a pc you are invincible or immune from the laws of this country.  I will post here once his identity is known, and beleive me, this guy is in the business and probably works for Vanguard or one of the big wall street firms.  Word to the wise, dont make libelous statements on the internet. 
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on June 26, 2013, 07:29:31 PM
I must have missed those statements, everything I saw was pretty factual.  Then again, I only had been reading for a month or two.

Was he asked to remove said comments and refused, or was a lawsuit the first go-to option?
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: Joet on June 26, 2013, 08:52:58 PM
It's almost prima facie to demonstrate that whole life policies aren't going to appreciate as well as indexing. Various risk assumptions aside the whole cost/fee structure makes that sort of thing trivial. Libelous? um what? As far as I know, there werent even any parties with standing as he didnt even mention anyone by name or business (did he?, ok, I didnt read anything on the site, but honestly, water is wet, puppies are cute, paula dean is racist, and whole life policies dont make much sense and insurance salesman arent your buddy)
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on June 26, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
It's almost prima facie to demonstrate that whole life policies aren't going to appreciate as well as indexing. Various risk assumptions aside the whole cost/fee structure makes that sort of thing trivial. Libelous? um what? As far as I know, there werent even any parties with standing as he didnt even mention anyone by name or business (did he?, ok, I didnt read anything on the site, but honestly, water is wet, puppies are cute, paula dean is racist, and whole life policies dont make much sense and insurance salesman arent your buddy)

What makes you think it's about whole life insurance?
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: grantmeaname on June 26, 2013, 09:07:39 PM
All that matters is that in todays age dont think that because you sit behind a pc you are invincible or immune from the laws of this country.  I will post here once his identity is known, and beleive me, this guy is in the business and probably works for Vanguard or one of the big wall street firms.  Word to the wise, dont make libelous statements on the internet.
You're talking out your ass, and it shows. Point me to a single statement that meets any test anywhere in the nation for libel, and I'll give you my car.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on June 26, 2013, 09:12:21 PM
All that matters is that in todays age dont think that because you sit behind a pc you are invincible or immune from the laws of this country.  I will post here once his identity is known, and beleive me, this guy is in the business and probably works for Vanguard or one of the big wall street firms.  Word to the wise, dont make libelous statements on the internet.
You're talking out your ass, and it shows. Point me to a single statement that meets any test anywhere in the nation for libel, and I'll give you my car.

You have a car?
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: grantmeaname on June 26, 2013, 09:15:57 PM
Here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_300SL). If you can prove I don't have it I'll give you my car.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: Allknowing305 on June 26, 2013, 09:17:44 PM
I dont want your car, dont need it, and obviously none of you realize what your talking about.  The blog is down, there is a federal law suit thats been filed for libelous statements, and a judge signed off to reveal the identity of the blogger. 

If I were wrong, then why is the blog and twitter down?  Why the same day he was served did the it all go dark? 
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: grantmeaname on June 26, 2013, 09:26:30 PM
I didn't say that no citizen of the United States alleged that LTR's author had said something libelous - it's a shamefully common (http://www.popehat.com/) tactic to shut down criticism. I said that he didn't do anything libelous, in response to your insinuation that he was breaking the laws of this country. And you still haven't provided any evidence that there even is a suit - show me the filings on PACER or even just name the jurisdiction involved!

Protip: the level of discourse on this site is a little higher than "obviously none of you realize what your [sic] talking about".
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: DoubleDown on June 27, 2013, 09:19:23 AM
I dont want your car, dont need it, and obviously none of you realize what your talking about.  The blog is down, there is a federal law suit thats been filed for libelous statements, and a judge signed off to reveal the identity of the blogger. 

If I were wrong, then why is the blog and twitter down?  Why the same day he was served did the it all go dark?

That is all proof of exactly nothing. I don't know whether this blogger committed libel or not (very high bar to prove that, so good luck), but the fact that a corporation filed a lawsuit means nothing. It would not be the first time a company filed a lawsuit claiming defamation in an attempt to stifle legitimate speech. Lawsuits are filed all the time, many of them frivolously. And sadly, a prudent person would likely choose to take down their website to reduce their exposure, all thanks to a lawsuit hanging over them.

And of course a judge would allow the company to determine the blogger's identity in order to bring the suit forward. Would someone suing Mr. Money Mustache be required to bring forward some non-existent cartoon sketch to trial? The judge's actions mean nothing regarding actual proof of defamation or libel.

I can say this -- if I was that blogger, and a company filed a defamation lawsuit that was eventually dismissed or the plaintiff lost, I would be emboldened 100x to bring attention to that company's practices and thin skin. Now, if the blogger actually lied and hurt the company, then the company did what they had to do. I guess we'll see.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: matchewed on June 27, 2013, 09:28:24 AM
I'm going solely off of recollection but one of his articles did mention he works for a large financial firm and had expressed that he was not entirely certain of the future of the blog if his identity was known to his employer. I know that what I'm saying is about as solid as smoke so take it with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on June 27, 2013, 09:48:55 AM
I'm going solely off of recollection but one of his articles did mention he works for a large financial firm and had expressed that he was not entirely certain of the future of the blog if his identity was known to his employer.

I remember this post as well, and he mentioned he thought his name might get out eventually. 

His employer probably makes lots of money on active management, the exact opposite of his blog.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: bkru21 on June 27, 2013, 09:56:59 AM
I'm going solely off of recollection but one of his articles did mention he works for a large financial firm and had expressed that he was not entirely certain of the future of the blog if his identity was known to his employer. I know that what I'm saying is about as solid as smoke so take it with a grain of salt.

He choose to remain anonymous because he wanted to work for a large firm in the future, and didn't want the blog jeopardizing that. I don't remember him revealing that he did work for a large firm.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: matchewed on June 27, 2013, 09:58:29 AM
I'm going solely off of recollection but one of his articles did mention he works for a large financial firm and had expressed that he was not entirely certain of the future of the blog if his identity was known to his employer. I know that what I'm saying is about as solid as smoke so take it with a grain of salt.

He choose to remain anonymous because he wanted to work for a large firm in the future, and didn't want the blog jeopardizing that. I don't remember him revealing that he did work for a large firm.

Well I knew there was a reason I put some caveats in there.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: forward on June 27, 2013, 11:45:04 AM

Do we know that he is not a she?
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on June 27, 2013, 11:49:30 AM

Do we know that he is not a she?

On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

(In other words, "Mike" could be a woman, yes, but unlikely.)
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: NYD3030 on June 27, 2013, 01:27:09 PM
This is a bummer, LTR had quickly become one of my favorite blogs.  I hope this resolves itself in a manner that does not deprive us of his wisdom, but if what you see above is true I am not optimistic.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: abba on July 12, 2013, 03:08:14 PM
If you make comments about a company that you actually have zero knowledge of since it is a single location company on the other side of the country, then this kind of thing happens.

IF he did actually work in the industry and didn't disclose his outside activity to FINRA then he has a whole other can on worms to deal with.  Didn't any of you find it odd he pushed Vanguard a LOT?

It was not whole life...that is all
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: grantmeaname on July 13, 2013, 05:59:00 AM
If you make comments about a company that you actually have zero knowledge of since it is a single location company on the other side of the country, then this kind of thing happens.
Which company would that be? How do you know which side of the country LTR lives on?

Quote
IF he did actually work in the industry and didn't disclose his outside activity to FINRA then he has a whole other can on worms to deal with.
I don't believe so. The only standard disclosure that I do is the one for reportable securities transactions (meant to prevent front-running clients' money), and it looks like the blog guidelines (http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/Notices/2010/P120760) deal only with firm-run blogs, not with things employees can or cannot do in their spare time.

Quote
Didn't any of you find it odd he pushed Vanguard a LOT?
No. Many low-cost investors "push" Vanguard because it's the undisputed low-cost leader. See bogleheads, MMM, jlcollinsnh...
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: JoeK on July 16, 2013, 05:51:47 AM
A decent amount of it is archived here:
web.archive.org/web/*/Longtermreturns.com

Looks like he had it pulled from the archive.  It's no longer there.  :(
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on July 16, 2013, 10:57:55 AM
It'd be wonderful if someone with access to it all posted it anonymously in one big dump.  Some day, perhaps.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: yolfer on July 16, 2013, 12:04:17 PM
Dang, it's purged from google's cache too:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:longtermreturns.com
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: kyleaaa on July 23, 2013, 08:37:00 PM
Yep, it was a lawsuit:

http://www.virginiadefamationlawyer.com/1.%20Everest%20Wealth%20Management.pdf

The plaintiffs seem to have an unconvincing argument on the face of it to me.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: fiveoclockshadow on July 24, 2013, 07:10:53 AM
Heh - so it is now expunged from the internet except the plaintiffs have now made the very sensible claims about themselves part of the public record.

In general when you see companies like Everest doing this it is just a sure sign that the claims they are trying to suppress are true and that they are rotten to the core.

Another good example covered in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Fooling-People-Complete-Updated-Epilogue/dp/0470481544 (http://www.amazon.com/Fooling-People-Complete-Updated-Epilogue/dp/0470481544)
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: MissStache on July 24, 2013, 07:50:32 AM
Heh - so it is now expunged from the internet except the plaintiffs have now made the very sensible claims about themselves part of the public record.


Yep!  Never read the website, but now I know what kind of company Everest is thanks to the complaint!
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: mpbaker22 on July 24, 2013, 08:28:41 AM
Heh - so it is now expunged from the internet except the plaintiffs have now made the very sensible claims about themselves part of the public record.


Yep!  Never read the website, but now I know what kind of company Everest is thanks to the complaint!

All I have to say is - good luck to Everest when it comes to proving they can guarantee a 7% return.  Given the US court system, I would not be shocked if they win this claim, but they obviously should not win.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on July 24, 2013, 08:54:52 AM
Yep, it was a lawsuit:

http://www.virginiadefamationlawyer.com/1.%20Everest%20Wealth%20Management.pdf

The plaintiffs seem to have an unconvincing argument on the face of it to me.

Very interesting, thanks.

I wish the best of luck to Mike.  I very much appreciated his website.

Sucks that someone else had that much power over him/it based on bullshit claims.  Hope Mike wins, and eventually republishes everything and keeps blogging.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: DoubleDown on July 24, 2013, 10:23:16 AM
Wow what a load of crap in that complaint. LTR pointed out that no one can "guarantee" 7% returns, and the company files a lawsuit (since I guess they think they can). Unfortunately they've already mostly accomplished their mission in having the website taken down just through the lawsuit itself and intimidation. I also note snarkily that the plaintiff's attorneys don't know the difference between "principal" and "principle". I hope LTR has a good attorney that gets this lawsuit summarily dismissed.

Now that I think about it, maybe I'll call Everest today and tell them I want to sign up for their guaranteed 7% return, and when they say they can't deliver, I'll inform LTR. Or I guess I'll get a documented, guaranteed 7% return that they damn well better deliver lest they hear from more attorneys!
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: notquitefrugal on July 24, 2013, 10:30:46 AM
Wow. LTR looked like an informative website. I had bookmarked the Wayback Machine link and was looking forward to reading it before it was pulled.

Edited to add: If anyone has a mirror of the site, I'd still be interested in reading it. All too often, I bookmark something on the web and assume it will be available forever.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: FLBiker on July 24, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
Well, this sucks.  I'm relatively new to MMM but I've been following LTR for a while now.  Thanks to the folks who uncovered what has happened.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: gdborton on July 24, 2013, 01:04:33 PM
I think I've found a way to retrieve most if not all of the content of the blog. I'll be pulling it down to a personal archive before I share.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: swiper on July 24, 2013, 01:12:47 PM
I think I've found a way to retrieve most if not all of the content of the blog. I'll be pulling it down to a personal archive before I share.

Please do, I learned of this blog after it was taken down. The abrupt end adds to the mystique!
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: bkru21 on July 24, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
I think I've found a way to retrieve most if not all of the content of the blog. I'll be pulling it down to a personal archive before I share.

Please do, I learned of this blog after it was taken down. The abrupt end adds to the mystique!

It's because he spoke the truth and didn't bullshit when it comes to returns, like evidently Everest can. I don't understand why they don't go after someone iconic like Jack Boggle, who makes the same claims, but feel so threatened over an anonymous blog.

Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: richschmidt on July 24, 2013, 02:11:10 PM
From the complaint .pdf linked earlier... this is the portion of LTR's blog that they quoted:

[MOD EDIT: Everest Wealth Management has threatened the MMM blog with legal action due to this thread.  See discussion here: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/everest-wealth-management-threatens-mmm-blog-with-legal-action/ /END EDIT]
Quote
*** original quote removed by moderator MMM ***

A Note from MMM about Everest Wealth Management:

I decided to remove the quote that was originally in this box. It wasn't very interesting - just some guy's opinion that Everest could not really guarantee a 7% return. But it is still easily available elsewhere on the Internet. I thought the following information would be even more useful for people researching the company.

A guy named Philip Rousseaux, founder and President of Everest Wealth Management started hassling me by email about this forum thread. He claimed it contained "libelious" information that was damaging his firm, and hinted that if I did not take it down he would be "forced to refer this to counsel".

Why? Because this thread had made it to page 2 on Google search results for people searching for the company by name. He didn't like this.

So this is a company that seems to have a policy of policing the Internet and attempting to take down content that they feel is damaging to them. Rather than trying to post a response with their side of the story, the company decided to ask me - with threat of legal action -to delete the whole thing.

I'll leave it up to you if this is the type of company you would like to have managing your wealth.


Now, as I read that, I can see where he's coming from.  However, if I read it through the eyes of someone at Everest... well, he's just attacked my company and called us dishonest scam artists.  Of course I'm going to sue. 

Well... if it were me, I'd start by replying and educating LTR on how annuities work, etc. I might not actually sue.  But I can understand why they did.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: kyleaaa on July 24, 2013, 02:44:11 PM

Well... if it were me, I'd start by replying and educating LTR on how annuities work, etc. I might not actually sue.  But I can understand why they did.

LTR is in the industry. He knows how annuities work, probably  much better than does Everest.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: gdborton on July 24, 2013, 03:05:01 PM
So the simple solution is to get it from Bing (the down facing green arrows contain cache links) -

http://www.bing.com/search?q=site%3Alongtermreturns.com&go=&qs=HS&form=QBLH&pq=si&sc=8-2&sp=1&sk=&ghc=1

I imagine that this will also disappear, so I've already written some scripts to scrape all of the articles that Bing had and stored them locally.  If needed, PM me your email and I'll share.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: richschmidt on July 24, 2013, 03:13:08 PM

Well... if it were me, I'd start by replying and educating LTR on how annuities work, etc. I might not actually sue.  But I can understand why they did.

LTR is in the industry. He knows how annuities work, probably  much better than does Everest.

OK.  I was just saying what I would do if I were in Everest's shoes.  Which, obviously, I'm not.

I don't know LTR.  Just what I've read in that excerpt.  And now, thanks to gdborton and Bing, a little more.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: aj_yooper on July 25, 2013, 06:54:29 AM
So the simple solution is to get it from Bing (the down facing green arrows contain cache links) -

http://www.bing.com/search?q=site%3Alongtermreturns.com&go=&qs=HS&form=QBLH&pq=si&sc=8-2&sp=1&sk=&ghc=1

I imagine that this will also disappear, so I've already written some scripts to scrape all of the articles that Bing had and stored them locally.  If needed, PM me your email and I'll share.

They are no longer available.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: gdborton on July 25, 2013, 07:16:26 AM
So the simple solution is to get it from Bing (the down facing green arrows contain cache links) -

http://www.bing.com/search?q=site%3Alongtermreturns.com&go=&qs=HS&form=QBLH&pq=si&sc=8-2&sp=1&sk=&ghc=1

I imagine that this will also disappear, so I've already written some scripts to scrape all of the articles that Bing had and stored them locally.  If needed, PM me your email and I'll share.

They are no longer available.

They're still working for me... you need to click the downward green triangle, then click cached page.  If you click the blue search result you'll get a 404 error.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: aj_yooper on July 25, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Like you said, downward green arrow. Got it.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: TLV on July 25, 2013, 11:30:29 AM
From the complaint .pdf linked earlier... this is the portion of LTR's blog that they quoted:

Quote
I've never heard of Everest Wealth Management before, but I can assure you that neither they nor anybody else legally operating in the United States would or could guarantee 7% return. No investment even remotely close to this number exists today in the United States.

...

What these Everest Wealth Management guys and hundreds others like them do is dance around the words to make sure they convey the impression of that "guaranteed" 7% return without actually being pinned down to deliver it.
The claim for the second part, I can understand someone suing over that (even if it's accurate) as it is pretty defamatory.

However, the claim that the first bolded part is LTR accusing them of operating illegally? That just seems like a reading fail to me. The structure of the sentence indicates LTR is lumping them in with legally operating companies, not excluding them.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on July 25, 2013, 01:02:49 PM
However, the claim that the first bolded part is LTR accusing them of operating illegally? That just seems like a reading fail to me. The structure of the sentence indicates LTR is lumping them in with legally operating companies, not excluding them.

I see it as the opposite, the second part isn't defamatory to me.  But that first part can be read as "companies operating legally couldn't/wouldn't guarantee a 7% return ...and therefore they must be operating illegally" (the latter part being implied).
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: kyleaaa on July 25, 2013, 01:15:55 PM
However, the claim that the first bolded part is LTR accusing them of operating illegally? That just seems like a reading fail to me. The structure of the sentence indicates LTR is lumping them in with legally operating companies, not excluding them.

I see it as the opposite, the second part isn't defamatory to me.  But that first part can be read as "companies operating legally couldn't/wouldn't guarantee a 7% return ...and therefore they must be operating illegally" (the latter part being implied).

A more reasonable interpretation would be that they aren't REALLY guaranteeing 7%. This interpretation is reinforced by the 2nd bolded statement.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: mpbaker22 on July 25, 2013, 01:20:01 PM
Logically it's an either/or (or could be both).  The first statement doesn't point either way.
The second bolded part then seeks to declare which piece the author thinks is false.  that would be the 7% piece.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: abba on August 16, 2013, 02:02:21 PM
Just as an FYI he was given the opportunity to remove the company name, as he knew nothing of the company or even what the actual ad said specifically, only what he heard from a poster.  He didn't remove the company name, instead he shut everything down.
Title: Re: Long-Term Returns
Post by: arebelspy on August 16, 2013, 05:15:14 PM
Just as an FYI he was given the opportunity to remove the company name, as he knew nothing of the company or even what the actual ad said specifically, only what he heard from a poster.  He didn't remove the company name, instead he shut everything down.

Was he given an "opportunity" before the lawsuit was filed, or was a lawsuit filed first?

[MOD EDIT: Everest Wealth Management has threatened the MMM blog with legal action due to this thread.  See discussion here (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/everest-wealth-management-threatens-mmm-blog-with-legal-action/). /END EDIT]