Posted on 02/11/2024 10:33:32 AM PST by Widget Jr
Is that how you worked in finances, or whatever it was you did, for over 30 years?
Given how often Armstrong is so badly wrong, how much money did you or your associates and business partners lose for using the information Armstrong offered?
Again, you’ve stepped into water far over your head.
You simply do not have the experience to objectively understand how wrong you are, or why you are wrong.
And that’s OK.
I provided multiple links showing the price of gold per ounce for the last 20 years. Armstrong made multiple predictions of $5,000 / ounce gold for years and set a deadline. The deadline passed, $5,000 gold never happened. Neither did these predictions from "Martin Armstrong – Gold Bullion To “Max Out At $5,000 Per Ounce":
– Fall 2015 turning point – civil unrest and riots globally says forecaster Armstrong
– European banks will collapse and “blood in the streets”
– Gold to “max out at $5000 per ounce”
That is not everything from that link, not that it matters. These events did not happen. End of story. It doesn't take an economist, self appointed experts, or one with years of experience in the finance to know this.
I explained some of Armstrong's tricks, making wild predictions about events that are already happening and telling people what they already know. Someone with decades of experience in finance should know how to spot a fraud like this.
—> Someone with decades of experience in finance should know how to spot a fraud like this.
We do know how to spot a fraud.
We pay Armstrong for research because he isn’t a fraud.
Simple as that.
Who is “we”?
—> Who is we?
“ Someone with decades of experience in finance ”
You have posted threads about Armstrong and defended him.
You brought it up, it is fair to ask you to back it up.
Who is this "we" that is paying Armstrong for his research?
—> Who is this “we” that is paying Armstrong for his research?
As I’ve written to you 2-3 x already:
Investment professionals. Family offices, private investment managers, hedge fund managers, etc.
Yes widget. All advisors who are on the top 10% of SEC registrations - though typically not the mutual funds.
Previously you have stated you were a a professional investment manager and mutual and hedge fund manager. You have posted several threads by Martin Armstrong going back to 2013, and defended him on the forum.
Now you admit in post #44, that you actively seek out and pay for his research. You also repeated what you said in what said in post #20 on my "Martin Armstrong's Bad Calls" thread that may people in the industry, which you now claim include the top 10% of SEC registered advisers, pay for and use his research.
In Armstrong's 2009 guilty plea, the SEC permanently barred him from associating with any investment adviser. That ruling has not been overturned. The SEC ruling including his admission of guilt and barred from any future investment advising is her, https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2009/ia-2926.pdf.
It is illegal for him to advise any investment advisor, like yourself. In turn, it is illegal, and completely against professional ethics, for a investment adviser to solicit and pay for advice from who can not legally advise them. In the real world, no professional client wealthy enough to seek the skills of the top 10% of SEC registered investment advisers would knowingly use anyone relying on the advice of a convicted felon the SEC barred from the profession.
So which is it? Are you just a forum troll, or are you breaking the law and betraying your client's trust?
—> It is illegal for him to advise any investment advisor, like yourself. In turn, it is illegal, and completely against professional ethics, for a investment adviser to solicit and pay for advice from who can not legally advise them
I will try to be as kind as I can while telling you the truth.
1. Martin does not “advise” anyone.
And here again, you demonstrate you have no clue about the meaning of “research.” In short, you are so far over your head, you don’t know what you don’t know. And those who do instantly see you are a blowhard.
2. This also means I do not pay Martin for advice, but purchase research. But since you do not apprehend the difference, the distinction is lost on you.
So yes, you are completely wrong yet again.
3. I am no longer working, so you are wrong again.
Seriously, you are a fool at best, who is writing about things you cannot remotely understand.
For this reason I will follow Scripture and leave you to your folly.
In Armstrong’s 2009 guilty plea, the SEC permanently barred him from associating with any investment adviser. That ruling has not been overturned. The SEC ruling including his admission of guilt and barred from any future investment advising
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2009/ia-2926.pdf.
WOW! Thanks
Word games are distinctions without difference under the law.
—> Word games are distinctions without difference under the law.
Again you demonstrate you do not understand SEC law, which defines terms precisely and is supported by decades of legal enforcement.
Now you can continue to pretend you know things and waste your own time, but I am not willing for you to continue to waste my time.
Martin Armstrong is barred from advising. That means he can not directly or indirectly advise investment advisers, period.
When a investment adviser purchases "research" to buy or sell for their clients, that is accepting investment advice.
Accepting information to use in a advisory capacity from a person barred by the SEC is illegal and a breach of professional ethics.
End of story.
So you're on a first name basis with this crook?
What's that old saying about being careful with the company you keep (or do business with)?
—”“NOW is a great time to sell gold.””
A very good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.