Saturday, June 21, 2008

Haldeman: Conflicting Reports?

The Daily Dartmouth finally got around to reporting yesterday that Dartmouth’s Board Chair Ed Haldeman will be stepping down from his post as Putnam Investment’s CEO and President—dartlog readers may recall our coverage of this event here several days ago.

Haldeman will now be the chair of the company’s mutual fund unit. According to Haldeman, as reported in the Daily Dartmouth, “This transition has been anticipated for a very long period of time.”

Specifically, according to the Daily D’s article, this transition has been anticipated for nearly two years. According to the Daily D: “Plans for Haldeman to step down began in fall 2006 when the Power Financial Corporation began negotiations to acquire Putnam.”

However, according to the Boston Globe (June 13, 2008), as of this past spring, such a transition was not in the cards for the former CEO: “In May [2008], Haldeman disclosed that Power Financial had extended his contract at least through 2010, which a spokeswoman said at the time would keep him in the roles of chief executive and president.”

Perhaps the editors at the Daily D should be forgiven; it may be they don't read the Boston Globe, sticking to the forwarded press releases from the Dartmouth administration instead.


Anonymous said...

Good for you! The business press was full of the kind of article from the Globe that you cited. Power Corp. was "confident" about Honest Ed's abilities right up to the moment when they decided that he was not doing the job. See:

Putnam owners reaffirm support for Haldeman. Move signals faith CEO can forge a turnaround. By Ross Kerber, Globe Staff, May 3, 2008

Putnam Investments' Canadian owners will keep chief executive Charles "Ed" Haldeman Jr. on for another two years, despite the Boston investment firm's lagging performance.

-- Emphasis on the term "lagging"....

Anonymous said...

While you are busy congratulating yourself for beating The D with the Haldeman story, you should know it was reported in the WSJ a full week before your posting. I suppose now we will be subjected to a week of smartass comments from erudite postings before you uncover another scoop from your ace reporters and others who have no life.

Anonymous said...

The WSJ article the previous post alludes to, suggested Power Corp. might be putting together a search committee to find a replacement for Putnam Investments CEO and President Ed Haldeman, not the announcement of Haldeman staying on at Putnam! After that WSJ article, the Globe was the first and only newspaper that Haldeman, and only Haldeman, announced his new contract with Power Corp. extending thru 2010 remaining in the position of CEO and President of Putnam Investments. Its understandable that never before made public events revealed in TDR might have panicked the firm. But Power Corp was kind enough to allow Haldeman to spin his story, and hold off on Haldeman’s actually being canned as CEO of Putnam before the Dartmouth alumni cast their ballots. How very kind of his employer. What I find unbelievable is all those in The Dartmouth that are willing to risk their reputation for a man who obviously and pathetically is attempting major damage control with utter fabrication and absurdities. Haldeman continues to mistake the Dartmouth community for a community college. The comments in the TDR are anything but wise ass comments; these are very serious concerns, and not just to Dartmouth College.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 2:12 is factually incorrect. The article in the WSJ named the replacement for Ed Haldeman with a person from Fidelity, Bob Reynolds. It also announced Haldeman would assume chairmanship of the mutual fund business of Putnam, which had been sold a year earlier. The WSJ article was very specific and it appeared on June 12. The Globe caught the story the next day, June 13. The article did not present suggestions, it stated the facts.

Anonymous said...

This is the exact statement that appeared in the WSJ on June 12.

BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Putnam Investments on Thursday said it has named Robert Reynolds president and chief executive of the asset manager. The firm's current CEO, Ed Haldeman, has been appointed chairman of Putnam Investment Management LLC, according to a press release. Reynolds was chief operating officer at cross-town rival Fidelity Investments from 2000 to 2007, said Putnam, which is owned by Canadian holding company Power Financial Corp.

Anonymous said...

Right... Unlike the Review's blog, the D takes time off between academic terms. Shame on the D.

The D takes Haldeman's statements at face value without researching, and the Review takes Scannell's statements at face value without researching.

Based on this, the Leon Black post, and the D's coverage of the Trustees' business dealings, perhaps the Review and the D should both try to recruit someone who understands the business world and knows how to write about it. This post reads like one side of a bad high school debate competition.

Anonymous said...

The article poster 2:12 referenced was speculating on Haldeman's abysmal leadership, having more than likely lost more mutual fund business than any other fund company in the history of earth and a Power Corp. Putnam CEO search committee.

Point taken on the petty 24hr span between the Globe and WSJ reporting that what Haldeman volunteered previously to a Globe columnist was either complete deception or things suddenly went south. One thing is for sure...can you find the deception in Haldeman’s assertion that some fraudulent events happen at Putnam in 2001 and absolutely not in 2002 or 2003.

I wonder why Haldeman wants people to think that all the bad things that happened at Putnam also did not occur in 2002 and 2003?

"All Trades by Omid Kamshad's Putnam Accounts from January 2000 to September 2003."

"All Trades in Justin M. Scott's Putnam Account from January 2000 to September 2003."

“Trades in Omid Kamshad’s Putnam Accounts from January 2000 to September 2003 That Should Have Triggered Market Timing Department 100k Report.”

The TDR’s reporting of events at Putnam has lead to the replacement of a CEO (obviously they couldn’t out right can him, far too telling) and a Deputy Director of Enforcement. The Ds reporting has attempted to cover up concerns that no unbiased journalist would allow to be spoon fed. Not only is the TDR’s stuff good to go – its rock solid. Some people have nothing better to do because what their doing will be better for all. Amen.

Anonymous said...

First Spitzer, now Haldeman. Beware of the most sanctimonious among us!

I am not Scannell said...

The D scooped the hell out of Dartlog regarding the Phrygian Society.

Anonymous said...

Dartblog prefers expensive, modern, university-style urban terraces to the natural, grass hill behind Berry Library. Maybe it's time to give Jacob Baron the Corbusier award.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure the Review isn't patting itself on the back for uncovering anything that wasn't previously reported, just showing that The D ignored substantial amounts of information.

In the business world, when what Haldeman just did happens it is met with a great deal of skepticism, because it is in investors' best interests to be skeptical of corporate behavior. So, instead of reporting on the change the same way everyone else did, the D swallowed the PR packaging hook, line, and sinker.

Anonymous said...

There is a huge abyss between the D scooping TDR and the D knowingly
being an accomplice to the perpetuation of a hypocrisy that will eventually be considered Dartmouth’s greatest shame! A fall from grace; duping is the art, soul selling is the ultimate regret.

Anonymous said...

I delight in being Scannell - no regrets here.
Its that business baby, dirty, stinking business...

Anonymous said...

It's hilarious that these folks think that their article in the Review had an ounce of impact on the Power Group's decision here.

Try searching "Haldeman" and "Scannell" on Google. The only articles that come up that mention any allegations against Haldeman are Review and The D articles, aside from some articles from '05 when Scannell initially filed his suit and in which Haldeman's name is only mentioned because he was CEO. It's not as if The Review broke some major news that the mainstream press then picked up on. This was strictly Dartmouth news, probably because nobody else bought that a thorough investigation by the Mass Attorney General and the SEC would have missed something this big, and that this guy Scannell would just suddenly "remember" what he had never before mentioned about Haldeman.

Haldeman probably shot himself in the foot by bringing up the allegations in the press conference. Until then, nobody on State Street or Wall Street thought it was an issue.

I've talked to a few of my friends who work for Putnam competitors in Boston, and the shop talk is that this was planned by Power and Haldeman all along. Haldeman apparently signed on as CEO when Marsh & McLennan was parent with an express directive to stem the outflows of AUM so that MMC didn't have to sell Putnam off in a fire sale right after the scandals. He also apparently wanted out when he accomplished this and Power bought Putnam at a decent valuation, because he considered his career done. But Power offered considerable extra money to him if he stayed (plenty of press on that in Feb 07), and so he agreed to one year while they looked for a good replacement. The contract of course was written to last through 2010 so that investors wouldn't become worried about a potential lack of leadership in the short term.

In other words, this was all part of the plan, for Ed and for Power. And if you think this is a "demotion" due to a Review article, I say you're out of your mind. Ed's no Ned Johnson, but he did what MMC asked of him, and then what Power asked of him--steward the recovery of a mortally injured business into the hands of a proactive parent which could then take the next step of restoring its image.

And this is coming from an alum who's pro-parity, and voted for the parity slate.

You young editors just need to be put in your places a bit, sorry to say. I used to love the Review when Rago was editor, and Linsalata, and the years before them. But Esfiani (sp?) Smith can't expect her tabloid level journalism to keep the same readership interested.

Anonymous said...

Denial after denial, isn't that what they all do til the bitter end? Spin baby, spin. Shop talk - how reliable. Previous post unintentionally raises the question why Ed would himself announce in the Boston Globe his new contract with Power Corp to remain CEO and Pres until 2010 knowing full well he would be resigning. Poster 3:07 (I hope its not Putnam's outside attorney) makes the case that Ed "Lincoln" Haldeman was not telling the truth again and was just using a Globe columnist as his personal PR firm - just like he uses the D, oh my. It’s not wise to publicly humiliate respected business columnist.

Nice guy said...

@anon 3:07: Your post was too long to read but "But Esfiani (sp?) Smith" caught my eye. Too busy to scroll back to get "Emily Esfahani-Smith"?

Sad bunch of alums here.

Anonymous said...

Either drunk or senile. Maybe both.

MOOSE123 said...

@anon3:07, by his/her own admission a pro-parity alumnus/a, gives a factual and unbiased account of Haldeman's tenure at Putman which is refreshing to see. I commend the Review for having the courage to print it, and now repeat a previous suggestion. Further demonstrate your courage by apologizing to Haldeman, refrain from further unjustified muckraking, and return to what you are best at - constructive criticism where your reporting has a valid base and can be of real value. Right now, your wasting your valuable time by barking up the wrong tree.

Anonymous said...

I am another pro-parity-slate voter, though that is really unrelated, who agrees strongly with both Anon 3:07 and Moose123.

Review editors: Such comments have your interests at heart, based on a wee bit more experience. Please consider the advice.

Anonymous said...

Living the fall, a fall from grace. Out stretched hands in his grasp slowly let go so not to fall as well. What man would take us under having defended him dutifully until we no longer could? Denial tempts no longer, its face no longer frightening. Fooled as we were… never were we fools.

Anonymous said...

Living the fall, a fall from grace. Out stretched hands in his grasp slowly let go so not to fall as well. What man would take us under having defended him dutifully until we no longer could? Denial tempts no longer, its face no longer frightening. Fooled as we were… never were we fools.

I didn't realize posting on Dartlog was the new cool thing to do after losing at pong.

Anonymous said...

6-1, 6-0, 2-0, 40-love It appears there is more game left. Although it's becoming apparent that the over powering serve is taking its toll.

Anonymous said...

6-1, 6-0, 2-0, 40-love It appears there is more game left. Although it's becoming apparent that the over powering serve is taking its toll.

Cruel but Fair said...

You voted for the "Parity Slate," you say?

It is not at all clear to me why anyone would care which way you voted or why it would matter...even if anyone is naïve enough to take you at your word --and I am not, Mr. Anonymous.

This is a piece of news.
At that, a rather interesting piece of news for Dartmouth.

The Daily Dartmouth's puff-piece on Chairman Haldeman reminds me of nothing so much as dull and regurgitated PR. What was once called: Towing the line.

The Review has taken a position on The Board, The Chairman and the current administration and at their best the Review keeps the administration and board honest by calling the ruling cartel out on thier skimpy attire and on occasion lampooning and harpooning their bulbous keisters for good measure-- and here they are at there best.

On the other hand, The Daily Dartmouth’s “reporting” has not only swallowed the worm but has, as they say, gobbled the hook, line and the sinker.

Nice coverage TDR!
Keep up the good reporting…with a raised eyebrow and a twinkle in the eye.

….oh and lest I forget, I simply must mention that "I voted against the parity slate."

That, I suppose, is the gold standard for objective and fair?


Anonymous said...

This just in - Ed Haldeman has agreed to contribute $25 million to create Dartmouth's Haldeman School of Journalism.

Anonymous said...

@anon 3:07: The former MA Attorney General you have identified, after failed gubernatorial bid, took a position at financial services industry law firm that disgraced former Director of the Boston Office of the SEC, who had resigned only two days after Putnam scandal became public, coincidently resides as well . It seems a whole lot a resigning surrounds this sordid affair. Lets hope it continues.

Anonymous said...

You're absolutely right anon 838, there was a whole of resigning and terminations, and rightfully so. That resigning happened when the scandal itself 2003.

But it is oh so likely that in 2008 the Dartmouth Review would catalyze another resignation, and that the resignation of a CEO at the center of it all, when the attorney general of MA and the SEC had combed through 1000s of documents and interviewed all of the relevant witnesses--not one of whom mentioned Haldeman.

Oh and that new earth-shattering aspect of the scandal that Esfahani Smith "scooped", supposedly like a Dartmouth Deep Throat, it never entered mainstream press at all. The Execs at Power just read through the Review and figured that they'd better listen to the small conservative rag with a clear agenda (and a fair one) in the midst of a bitter ivy league political campaign. That seems likely.

Next thing you know, the LP's at Apollo will demand the ouster of Leon Black after they all tune in to Dartlog and read that Black's firm *gasp* backed out of the acquisition of a faltering business. God forbid he weigh the contract termination & litigation costs against the value of the deal and choose the former.

Esfahani Smith et al., your intelligence and opinions are valued, but your authority on business matters are not. You've made that abundantly clear, especially after the mention of Black.

Please, stick to breaking the news on the next missteps of the Board and the Administration's bloatacracy. That's what your loyal subscribers pay for, and that's what we got until this May.

Cruel but Fair said...


I am fascinated by the “…that’s what we got until this May” quip of the last poster who, as I understand, was an avid and faithful reader of the Review until, as he says, last May; probably voted against the “board-packing” slate, as well.

To be that disingenuous you must be either a lawyer or a VERY interested party with a stone in his shoe.

I am sure, based on your post, that you were swooning over the Review during the “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Freedman’” brouhaha back in ’88, and were probably gaga over the performance art of the “Dartmouth Committee to Beautify the Green Before Winter Carnival” back in ’86 and were braced by the courage it took to publish “The Natives are Restless” issue in 2007.

I would also expect that you are a faithful listener to the “Laura Ingraham Show” and just finished Dinesh D’Souza’a lastest book “What’s so Great about Christianity” when you were stupefied by the Review breaking with its tradition to print an incendiary article about the Chairman of the Board of Dartmouth College.

Did I about nail that one….sport?

Now, back to your day job and, of course, your other paying clients. The clocks ticking.


Anonymous said...

Did I about nail that one… sport?

There must be more interesting things to do on Nantucket than read Dartlog.

Cruel but Fair said...


Nantucket in June, eh?

That does sound poetic and if I may say it was a nearly a prescient guess sans the old money, chichi digs and trendy cuisine -- if Nantucket was in the UP of Michigan.

Nonetheless, it is a nearly uncanny guess if only off by a crap load of miles.

The way I see it, there’s something or someone that doesn’t suit you down there in Nantucket. Perhaps Ms Esfahani-Smith or Mr Erickson holiday there in the off-season…or maybe it’s the proverbial “man from Nantucket” -- don’t know.

In your postit, you came across as a real buffo aficionado of The Dartmouth Review…pre-May 2008, to be sure, but a true green TDR swell.

If I were to venture a wild guess, "SPORT" (seems you're a “non-sports” fella…nerd, geek…it’s all good my friend, no worry --we’re all special) I would say May 2008 was the first you’d ever been directed (by board chairmen unknown) to read the Dartmouth Review.

Seems it disagreed with you…or your CEO’s…constitution.

Like a chill enema, maybe?

You're going toe to toe with a college Junior there killer (or is she a sophomore?).

Well done.


5:40 anonymous said...


I'm not the same poster who claimed to have detected a sudden change in the reporting at the Review.


Anonymous said...

On June 21 at 12:48pm, this comment was posted here:

I suppose now we will be subjected to a week of smartass comments from erudite postings before you uncover another scoop from your ace reporters and others who have no life.

Looking pretty accurate so far. Keep 'em coming.

Cruel but Fair said...


Who's to say who you really are?

Though I do find it rather curious that you and “the other guy” share the exact same name and opinion. Exact. Same spelling, same complaint, same wit such as it is.

Quite a coincidence; isn't it…Mr Anonymous!

Especially considering the Terms of service of this blog would otherwise deprive you of any possible honest excuse. As far as any casual observer can tell you’re merely a blog-stalker with a grudge and a woeful sense of humor.

In any case, all above still applies.


Anonymous said...

@anon 2:56 The TDR coverage of Haldeman and his role in the scandal, which effects are presently being litigated today, are certainly of a current concern. How is it not important considering the leadership role the Chair of Dartmouth’s Board assumes? And what of the parallel behaviors brought to light in the TDR, they too are exceedingly important given the anticipated dynamic changes to the regulatory responsibilities attempting to be assumed by our federal government –essentially doing away with meddlesome state rights. I think most in the Dartmouth community would be greatly concerned if Haldeman hasn’t been truthful in this matter.

Anonymous said...


Good job, Sherlock. Somehow blogger spells "anonymous" the same way every time someone leaves an anonymous comment. I agree that that's just too uncanny to be a coincidence.

If I didn't like the results of an election and I needed somewhere to sulk and let off steam, I suppose frolicking in the woods with the Michigan militia to shoot beer cans and criticize the Review-cred of Dartlog commenters is as good a way as any to do that.

I don't claim to have enough Review-cred to talk shop with you about the ein Freedman bit, but I have read enough of the Review to remember when it was a better publication than it is now. Menashi and Desai wrote better than most professionals. During the past few months the Review seems to be reduced to publishing poorly-sourced and ignorantly written smears of the establishment Trustees. Hopefully it's just a phase.

In any event, I hope you hit all the cans, but don't forget to put the safety back on before you pass out. It'll all look better in the morning. Trust me.


Anonymous said...

This is anonymous 256.

Something strange appears to have happened: the anon-poster above (and possibly another) just claimed at least implicitly to be me. He/she is not, and I’m unclear what motive he/she could have for that post. Please do not hijack my argument. The tirade about Michigan militias was silly, and beside the point. I have not checked this blog since I wrote the original post, and I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it. I am currently in Tokyo so I was asleep.

But it would appear to me that there are a few on both sides here, which I view as a good thing. Theoretically this could just be an argument between one schizophrenic with multiple accounts and anons, but I assume that people are for the most part honest, and that chances are good we’ve got several participants on both sides. Hopefully someone of the dissenters can now offer a good counter to my “posits.”

All I (anon 256) am looking for is someone to rebut, reasonably, the two arguments I made: (1)that it is absurd to think that Esfahani-Smith’s reporting her 5-year-late-ground-breaking-scoop on Haldeman’s role in the Putnam scandal contributed in any way to Haldeman’s reassignment; and (2) that the current Review editors are maverick in presuming their expertise and authority extend beyond issues originating in Hanover, and would do better to follow the example set by recent editors such as Desai, Ellis, Rago, Linsalata, Beck, Hudak (that exhausts my recent memory, but add D’Souza, Panero, Ingraham, etc.), all of whom would have required a very high burden of proof before accusing a fellow Dartmouth man or woman of blatant dishonesty and immorality, and an even higher burden of proof to claim that their reporting had an major impact on a Fortune 500 company.

I would love to see a good rebuttal to those points. And below I will address the arguments that thus far have been made.

So far it looks like responses from dissenters can be set into three categories: “you’re not who you say you are”, “pick on someone your own size”, and “the reporting is topical because Haldeman’s ethics are relevant given his position at the College”. The last of those three is fair, so I’ll take that on first. Haldeman’s ethics are and should be inbounds. However, as I said there should be a very high burden of proof, and very thorough research done, if a TDR writer is going to label him as unethical and borderline criminal. I don’t see any evidence to suggest that Esfahani Smith was more thorough than the MA Attorney General and the SEC (after it terminated the head of the Boston office), or why we should trust her one witness whose testimony from 5 years ago contradicts his current accusations. But more importantly, the recent posts relating to Haldeman’s resignation go beyond questioning his business ethics and its impact on his stewardship of Dartmouth, and begin to claim that the Review had changed the course of Haldeman’s career. When I read that, I had to speak up. As I argued in Anon 256, that claim is ludicrous.

As for the “pick on someone your own size” argument, I’m only criticizing a College junior because she’s writing for a publication whose credibility was built on the backs of 27 (?) years of other College juniors some of whom I admire quite a bit. If with that credibility in pocket she chooses to malign an alum’s character, and then claim her maligning brought him low (and he’s not even been brought low according to the mutual fund community, rather received a handsome and cushy reward after a star—not superstar—career), then she invites criticism. And so she has it.

The suggestions that I might be Haldeman’s lawyer are absurd, and the accusations that I didn’t tune into the Review until May are unfounded. Haldeman’s lawyer has better things to do than monitor this blog I’m sure, and I’m confident he or she would craft a better argument than I have. It’s probably fair to assume that there are only alums on here, and maybe a handful of other Dartmouth enthusiasts. As for my readership of TDR, well it has been consistent over the past few years since I have been traveling much and turn to reading on the web in my free time. Before that it was inconsistent, but I was still a subscriber, and I read the occasional print issue in the 90s. For the most part, I have been a TDR supporter: I was with the Review on the Ein Friedman thing, the SLI, the Natives are Restless bit (though the cover was in poor taste, I thought). And though I’ve always read with a healthy skepticism, given a TDR’s raison d’etre, I apply that same skepticism to all publications, and TDR has usually reached the highest standards.

My point is, if you check the straight facts, TDR has had no effect on Haldeman’s tenure at Putnam beyond causing a minor headache for his legal counsel. The current staff has had a brief lapse into giddy self-satisfaction that is unfounded. I'm not about to terminate my subscription, but I had to speak up.

And just so you know about my voting record, I voted for Rodgers, for that Hoover fellow (name escapes me), against Zywicki, and against Smith. Do with that whatever you’d like.

Cruel but Fair said...


1) your two points are essentially the same point, so let’s be straight about that.


2) Your “points” [sic] offer no evidence or substance to give them even the dull-sheen of credibility.


3) What is otherwise obvious subterfuge could be mitigated by backing up such reckless accusations with evidence, a quote perhaps, that confirms your wild assertion that anyone at the Review claimed that “Esfahani-Smith…contributed in any way to Haldeman’s reassignment” or even that they, “claim that their reporting had an major impact on a Fortune 500 company.”


4) According to their article, the Chairman of their own college, Ed Haldeman, refused to speak to them when they were preparing their series of articles even while giving free access to the Daily Dartmouth at the same time. A tactic that on the one hand seems to have paid off and on the other seems to have bit him in the keister.


5) FWIW, 5 years ago the current staffers of the Review would have been between 12 and 16 years old. Most were probably only in the embryonic stages of lampooning charlatans, shysters and CEOs, disturbing them and theirs that think they are above and beyond the normal slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.


6) As far as I can tell, no Review staffer claims to be an expert on any subject other than teeing off those that believe they are not fair game and in so doing and on great occasion going well beyond the bounds of good taste in the name of good times and keeping the knuckleheads and collegiate hoi polloi honest.


7) You are spending an inordinate amount of time on a college blog for which you claim only to have “read the occasional print issue in the 90s.”
That is curious. Normally one would know on which side their bread is being buttered and without evidence to the contrary I would not suppose what we see happening here on this blog is any exception to this apodictic rule of life and commerce.


8) With this many people teed-off and running for cover, I’d say the Review is doing what it does best. Setting pants on-fire.


9) You are certainly entitled to maintain all of the above, it seems even those “maligning” and “absurd” editors are prepared to let you rave on on their own blog. Seems very fair minded. Take advantage of the opportunity, my Tokyo friend --not to be confused with the wit above that seems to express his dull-thoughts in your stead...or something like that. Who knows...who really cares.


10) the terms of service of this blog require that you post with a name. It has been posted on the blog repeatedly. It helps to avoid such confusion as this. Many, however, view themselves as being above normal rules making it all the more difficult for us that do not.


Anonymous said...

Is there any chance that TDR's source discovered these factual, undeniable, timelines AFTER what ever testimony he gave? WSJ, Globe, NYT, USA Today... none of whom ever put together TDR's source's appearances before the SEC months earlier before the scandal broke in media and the very funds he was naming as being heavily market-timed having their named changed. If you can handle the truth, Haldeman, as Head of Investment's of Putnam Investments at the time, should very simply come clean with an answer to this very simple question. What was the REASON that Haldeman changed the names of the 5 funds (and ONLY those five funds, the 5 funds TDR’s source testified he printed internal docs in house, docs describing the market timing concern of ONLY those 5 funds ), one being the a flagship, five star Morningstar fund, International Voyager (never in the History of Putnam Investments has a five star Morningstar fund name been changed, that would be comparable to an owner/investment group changing the name of Tony Award Winning Broadway show in the middle of season – that has never happened as well. Those 5 fund name changes occurred only a few days after his last meeting with SEC. You also could ask the former Director of the Boston Office of the SEC about the timeline, but he resigned immediately after scandal broke. One of a number of SEC officials who have had difficulty when confronted with TDR sources accusations.

And to suggest that this information did not dramatically rise to the surface in the few months that TDR’s source was in the media is unrealistic at best, more likely just disingenuous. Historically, in the various large financial scandals, many revelations come to light with a thorough investigation of events. For anyone to suggest that a two week investigation by the SEC and a sudden settlement then announced by both the SEC and Putnam was a thorough investigation is flat out misleading. Read congressional transcripts, questioning the haste in which the settlement was arrived at by congressional leaders. As TDR’s source stated in Senate Testimony, “a tangle web has been woven.” Source was hoping government would follow through. It didn’t – he has! And word is, backed by factual accounts covered by TDR that there is more to this story. This has ZERO to do with the Dartmouth board bullshit.

Living the fall, a fall from grace. Out stretched hands in his grasp slowly let go so not to fall as well. What man would take us under having defended him dutifully until we no longer could? Denial tempts no longer, its face no longer frightening. Fooled as we were… never were we fools.

Denial has many faces; some denial will change because of the greater good. Some denial
is only a masquerading, it is shame!

Anonymous said...

News in, newest Dartmouth building approved (Haldeman missed vote).

The Scannell Center For Kick Ass.

I'm starting to like this guy!

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Mr. Scannell, for sharing your insight with us here. Can you tell us more about what it was like to work for Putnam under Haldeman? We are hungry for all those inside details! Did he stop by your desk every day, and did he eat a lot of Pringles?

Anonymous said...

Liv'en the fall...current event? I get it! It's happening before our very eyes.

Anonymous said...

All Trades by Omid Kamshad's Putnam Accounts from January 2000 to September 2003."

"All Trades in Justin M. Scott's Putnam Account from January 2000 to September 2003."

“Trades in Omid Kamshad’s Putnam Accounts from January 2000 to September 2003 That Should Have Triggered Market Timing Department 100k Report.”

Previous post unintentionally raises the question why Ed would himself announce in the Boston Globe his new contract with Power Corp to remain CEO and Pres until 2010 knowing full well he would be resigning. Poster 3:07 (I hope its not Putnam's outside attorney) makes the case that Ed "Lincoln" Haldeman was not telling the truth again and was just using a Globe columnist as his personal PR firm - just like he uses the D, oh my. It’s not wise to publicly humiliate respected business columnist.

Will someone please explain the discrepancies here? Ed says one thing, poster provides public documents contained in regulatory filings, as well as recent news column contradicting his public denials.

Hey Dartmouth…we got a problem here!

49 Cent said...

What's the message here? Put poor people on the Board?

Anonymous said...

The message is "Put Scannell on the Review's Staff"! At least he should get some credit for all the writing he's doing here.

If he's such an American Hero, why won't a normal news outlet give his theories the time of day? Why is the Review at the forefront of this?

Anonymous said...

those cited SEC filings, where can we access them? Google turns up nothing, and neither does EDGAR (though that's a complicated search-engine so I could have missed something)

Any one have links? Or any citation anywhere on the web so we at least know that they're real.

Has anyone besides the reposter even looked at them?

Anonymous said...

This dialog becomes boring, but the 49 Cent mention of the types of people being put on the Board may raise the level of discourse.

With the lawsuit in abeyance, the expansion plan will begin. Let's see how diverse, as promised, the next charter additions will be. Any predictions beyond yet another banker or financial sector type?

A.S. Erickson said...

Quickly scanning the comments on this post, one thought came to mind: the lack of imagination is downright frightening. Haven't you ever wanted a nom de plume? Well, now is your chance.

All comments posted as "annonymous" after this comment will be deleted.

Annonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
49 Cent said...

Anon555: Exactly my point. We'll wind up with 16 billionaires and 8 petitioners. Will the alumni council ever be able to nominate a winner?

Who would have guessed that the recent election also pitted Martha Beattie against John Macgovern for the alumni spot on the Search Committee?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
laconia said...

Found it. It's interesting to skim through. It makes marketing timing seem much more shady and immoral than I thought. If I'm reading it right though, the names of the funds whose names changed according to anon 8:49 aren't mentioned?

But reading it I'm actually beginning to doubt that Ed knew anything about it happening at Putnam before Scannell blew the whistle, because there was a memo sent out explicitly forbidding it in 2000 and a very poorly executed audit committee set up. If he joined in 2001 there's no reason he would have ever thought to look for it, especially since it must have been very difficult to detect in individual accounts.

The question is why Ed would not acknowledge that Kamshad continued to do this forbidden, unethical stuff after 2001. On the one hand, if he didn't know about it until Scanell blew the whistle, why would he care whether it stopped in 2001 or 2003? They could easily have just canned Kamshad, and no one would have blamed Ed at all. On the other hand, is it possible that Haldeman didn't read through the SEC complaint and so wasn't aware that Kamshad kept breaking the rules after 2001? Given how hectic those days must have been, that's possible. A more likely scenario though is that he found out when Scannell blew the whistle, or when the SEC meetings first started (when did that happen? like a month before Lasser left, correct?), and he deferred to his superior Lasser over the next month until the guy was thrown out?

Does that make sense?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
scammell said...

looks like Scannell got stiffffed:

that's pretty awful, but reason to go after Ed? I don't see the connection

laconia said...

anon 858, i just read through that SEC complaint, and it specifically said that the Market Timing Dept. was ineffectually organized such that it only actually operated one quarter every year:

31. "...Even after 2000, Putnam's system for detecting and preventing market timing by its own employees was fundamentally flawed because it only monitored for market timing during one quarter of a given year, leaving more than nine months of every calendar year without any monitoring whatsoever."

This sounds absurd, but it is in the SEC's (the prosecution's) complaint.

So isn't it extraordinarily likely that Kamshad would have done all of his post-2000 market timing during the 9-month window? And therefore isn't it likely that nobody at all would have been notified by the MTD at all.

It's even possible that Ed didn't even know the MTD existed--you have to remember that Market Timing as a concept wasn't even on the radar until 2003, and since Ed missed that internal discussion in 2000, he could have been blissfully ignorant as he claims.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
laconia said...

why were all those posts deleted? they were kind of crucial to understanding the flow of debate and discovery here, no? (admittedly that guy is kind of nuts though)

also, is anyone with me that the fact that the MTD only operated 3 months a year (as absurd as it is) exonerates Ed from at least some of the accusations?

scammell said...

scannell relax dude it's over. you lost.

congrats on succeeding in misleading the review and getting back at who you created in your head as your nemesis.

now some substantial minority of dartmouth alums will forever think he's a crook.

you can't really feel bad for either Ed or Scannell at this point though, can you?

sport said...

laconia, see A.S. Erickson's comment at June 24, 2008 9:30 PM. I think the comments were deleted for not having a name or pseudonym. I highly doubt that Dartlog deletes stuff for content unless it's spam or excessive swearing.

I wonder if blogger would allow Dartlog to disable the "anonymous" option while leaving the "Name/URL" option open.

TDR4LIFE said...

scannell is a true nutbar, clearly, but you gotta love that hiding under Dartmouth's "skirt of decency" line

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
laconia said...

Yeah oh well. But those were mostly the scammell rebuttals, which were crucial both for their mania and importance to the argument.

roughly, they went:

haldeman must have known about market timing...Market Timing Dept must have warned him...he changed names of 5 funds (none of which appear in the complaint as a said above)...he is unethical, check the facts...the facts show he is unethical...i know this because i'm more legit than the SEC... the fall...the fall from grace...fools never were we

...dartmouth your (sic) toast

nom de plume said...

getting boring?

i thought the development about the MTD only operating 3 months a year was interesting? doesn't it mean that the only way Haldeman could have known before the whistle blowing was if Lasser or someone else told him?

that's pretty big because it means there's probably not proof beyond witness testimony that Haldeman knew before he says he knew. which means that Scannell's accusations are entirely hypothetical--he has no way of knowing if Haldeman knew from his call center miles away

guy has a right to be bitter though

sport said...

1. click "Name/URL"

2. Write something in the "name" field.

i am not scammer said...

The obsessiveness of Scannell's personal vendetta is not enough to keep this thread from being boring. What you're talking about just won't have any effect on Haldeman or Dartmouth, and everybody can see that. This is the wrong forum.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pstarboard said...

Thanks, Sport

I am the humble recipient of your naming advice, your nautical alter ego, and a reminder of what we desire from our trustees.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I am Scannell said...

As far as someone suggesting some alumni now might think Ed Haldeman is a crook. That’s a far too divisive a suggestion. Haldeman is much more complex. I believe the question that has been presented is if he a truthful, ethical, admirable leader; or a master of self promotion and deception.

I have done my due diligence as if I did not know what I know. Dartmouth has been merely forewarned. Shoot the Messenger til the cows come home. Concerns posted are not just concerns for Dartmouth! There are millions of people outside of Dartmouth, people like my neighbors, dutiful middle class working stiffs that fill the trough for which all the financial services industry feeds, and are the very ones who suffer the greatest harm when the eventuality of no one watching pounces. I will say no more right now.

As a poster, I will be leaving you for the time being. Who ever is looking for the truth, step back and examine in its entirety the factual events, timelines, and responsibilities that have been presented to date in the TDR and the dartblog. Unfortunately SEC public docs posted must have been dome so incorrectly –they have taken down. That’s too bad; I’ll have to find out the appropriate way for them to be posted.

At a later date and place, I will return with a synopsis of the facts and circumstances being considered and add a more to the “debate” of which it is not. I have compiled one of the most comprehensive anthologies of whistle blowing ever documented.

To poster posting “Scannell is a Nut,” of course I AM A NUT, I’m a whistle blower – nobody in there right mind would attempt to do what I have done, and not many before me have done it as well! It is not for the weak of heart!

The people who have benefited from my whistle blowing the most, middle class folks, have rallied around my family. They are my country, they have my allegiance. I understand, and live their every single day struggles.

In summary, a quote from one of my favorite Steve Martin movies, “I’ve found my special purpose.”

Dartmouth…if you deserve better, demand it !

laconia said...

What are the chances this guy IS actually Scannell?

If he is, I kind of can't believe that the TDR would listen to him in order to smear a Dartmouth alum.

not scannell said...

I believe he really is Scannell, and he's posting and giving interviews here because no one else will listen to him. The market for information has efficiently sorted the products he is able to provide: once upon a time, some of his material was evaluated, believed, and used by prosecutors and the mainstream press. Now he's trying to find an outlet for the rejected material, or maybe the hazardous byproducts.

Sport said...

It could be that Scannell is actually marketing his the book and we didn't even know it!

laconia said...

I feel like the Review ought to apologize to Haldeman at this point. It's clear to anyone reading this thread that Scannell's accusations are mostly baseless. Even his timeline theories are wrong--the funds whose names changed are mentioned in the complaint.

A Publisher's Perspective said...

From a publisher’s perspective, Scannell’s story is compelling. I have 32 years experience publishing. TDR’s editorial in April caught my attention; I am a Dartmouth alumnus. No, I will not reveal my vote. I also am a mutual fund investor who has been deeply troubled over the practices that have been highlighted in TDR’s reporting. I am not invested with Putnam Investments; I had invested in an annuity with another mutual fund company caught up in the market timing fraud. I received a sizable market-timing settlement check coincidently the very week the Haldeman story was published.

As a publisher; content, broad appeal, and market size are determining factor to be considered in select a potential project. If Scannell stays true to himself, a perception of the “everyman,” he will garner the broad appeal. His market size is immense. 100 million mutual fund investors, millions of financial institution employees, and all the peripheral parties involved, lawyers, accountants, financial news. Lastly, his perspective is unique; he could be the next Erin Brockovich, sans breast, add balls.

From a publisher’s point of view, I would advice Mr. Scannell to be true to his roots. His experience is a middle class, modern day, D vs. G story that has had an immeasurable impact one of the country’s most critical, competitive, and forever changing marketplaces.

Scannell has an exceptional opportunity for a highly successful book. I have read his senate testimony and the comments attributed to him in the Dartlog. Although his writing maybe rough at times, he also is witty and clever. As a publisher, I enjoy that challenge. I think Dartmouth has nothing to fear. Scannell’s observation, “we were fooled…not fools,” is empathetic. Let the chips fall where they may, anything less corrupts the system and lessens the quality of all our efforts.

gnome de plume said...

The chips have already fallen. Scannell's allegations were acted upon and achieved a result. Good work, man.

That doesn't mean everything that comes out of his mouth is worth reporting. Part of a paper's job is to sort out the dross. If no reputable news source or prosecutor puts any stock in what he's saying, after bending over backward to give him their ears for several years, the Review has to wonder why he's come to them.

The Review should have realized that his latest allegations are simply vague and unfounded slurs motivated by an obvious personal bias or obsession. They have nothing to do with Dartmouth or with Haldeman's service on the Board of Trustees.

laconia said...

I'm sort of in the middle. The guy has an interesting story and has every right to try to sell his story.

It's just that that story should focus on his actual accomplishments. He did make a major contribution to bringing down the practice of market timing and people at Putnam who perpetrated it or sit idly by in full awareness (i.e. Lasser and the other terminated execs at Putnam in 2003)

There's no reason at all to rope Haldeman into it though. That would not be necessary to the story, and it would diminish his credibility. Because clearly on the Haldeman allegations he took the Review for a ride.

Would I go watch the movie/read the book? Probably not unless I were on an airplane, but I bet he would actually have a decent market for it.

Cruel but Fair said...


I found the coverage and the story printed in the Review compelling, interesting and highly relevant --A real look into the method of a man that should have more than a few critical eyes on him as Dartmouth comes to the crossroads.

I do not know in which way Mr. Scannel’s story is embellished or self-serving, certainly all stories are, but there does seem to be more than enough warning here in the recounting to make a Dartmouth alum, student or administrator take a moment’s pause in the midst of this revolution in the college’s governance and leadership.

Otoh, I find the lion’s share of the hot-hooey of our local internet twits (aka: trolls), who, very much like the curse of the poor, will always be with us to be the usual raunchy crap-stirring nonsense.

Bloviating “a paper's job is to…” claptrap whilst harrumphing with bodily noises that seem to have no purpose beyond the peculiar delight attained in making them.

One could only wish that these erstwhile Eddie Haskell’s might have a vested interest in the trials and travails of our onetime CEO and current Chairman’s future investments and legal affairs; otherwise, their droll and meaningless pontifications are at best inconsequential and at worst obtuse and thick-witted. I would prefer to think that these poor fellows aim at some success or endgame for their dogged efforts here beyond the intellectual fart-joke they have mastered.

As I well know, the NYT and the WSJ --even the Houghton Mining Gazette-- get these little malcontents’ missives on the same regular schedule in the mail and email drop; of course, they will always be with us but that does not mean that we are not entitled to regret their mischief.


Sport said...

Poster Laconia, you are so totally incorrect. You and anyone else who adds absolute falsehoods is only adding insult to further injury to our beloved Chuck. And I am no longer a fan. If Scannell is righting a book, how about not providing him with more fodder than he already has available. If we are to be fooled, let’s not aid the perpetuation of fooling ourselves further. Students are generally here four years; Dartmouth’s legacy is a lifetime! Preserve.

laconia said...

Sport and "cruel but fair", you are letting your hate for the man cloud your judgment. As you will see from comments above, I was a Scannell-believer and Haldeman denigrator UNTIL I read the legal complaint linked to above.

But this complaint contains facts which directly contradict what Scannell alleged and TDR printed about Haldeman. The funds whose names changed were not the funds named in the complaint, and the dept which would have alerted Haldeman of improper trading was only functioning 1/4 of the year (the trading obviously happened in the other 3/4).

You, like TDR, are too quick to jump on the bandwagon. And I admit I was too.

But please, "cruel but fair", do excuse me for my "droll and meaningless pontifications". I suppose whenever someone brings a critical eye on an argument that serves our parity side, that makes their opinion "droll and meaningless"?

Haldeman's corporate conduct is relevant, and the Review did well to draw attention to it. But it was not thorough enough in its research. Scannell's allegations are clearly bunk.

Shame on all of us for swallowing the bait Scannell served us. And shame on you, especially, "sport" & "cruel but fair" for your inability to admit we were taken for a ride.

I am Scannell said...

I'm back, I was hoping not have to post until a later date. LACONIA, your obviously not a Dartmouth student, from my experience they exude a greater depth of understanding.
Laconia you should definitely listen to Sport. Maybe you should call the Boston Office of the SEC and to speak with its Director. Please post after you speak with him and let me know what he told you. You could not possibly be Dartmouth community member! No true Dartmouth folk would spew out such nonsense! Your certainly not doing Haldeman any favors, not that I care. Now, back to my journey.

laconia said...

Scannell, give me a break with that "you're obviously not a Dartmouth student because you disagree with me" nonsense. You forget that most of Dartmouth doesn't believe you, including, prominently, the current petition-elected Board Member, TJ Rodgers.

And what is the director of the SEC in Boston going to tell me, exactly? Please let us all know, since you seem to know his mind.

You are the poster who cited repeatedly the document linked to above as "proof" (though I had to dig it up myself to end your monopoly on the evidence) that Haldeman must have been aware of the market timing, and as proof that he changed the funds names as a cover up. But, Scannell, in that legal complaint you offered as definitive proof, and which I was prepared to accept as proof, none of what you claim to be contained is there.

It excplicitly said that Kamshad alone continued market timing during Haldeman's tenure, and that the Market Timing Dept only operated 3 months out of the year leaving 9 months in which Kamshad could continue his illicit activities without any notice being given to Haldeman or anyone else. How in your head can you ignore that fact and claim (see above) that automatically generated 100k MTD reports would automatically have gone across Haldeman's desk? Either we are missing some facts which you haven't yet provided or else you are dim-witted and/or delusional.

And as I said above, the funds whose names changed--which you claim is proof that Haldeman was involved in a cover up--are not the funds mentioned in the complaint as having been subject to Kamshad's market timing. How do you explain that inconsistency in your story?

It quickly becomes apparent that you are wrapped up in a conspiracy theory here. Interesting that you only took off down this path after the MA Attorny General denied you your due as a whistle blower. But at this point stand tall and admit that you were wrong to take that deserved frustration on Haldeman.

Or else, if I'm wrong with what I've said above, please refute those points with a reasonable explanation of why they're not valid, I'd love to hear it. But "talk to the SEC director in Boston " and "you're not a Dartmouth alum/student because you don't buy my story" won't cut it. Not at Dartmouth, and certainly not in court, if that's where you're trying to take this.

I am Scannell said...

It must be embarrassing to be an attorney of your caliber to be monitoring this blog. You and I both know you will say anything as a hired gun. Tell you what, why don’t you write your book and I will write mine, and we can tour together. Let’s let the mutual fund investors decide who is being truthful.

As a lawyer, you certainly know that courts are for losers. Example, Ohio College Savings Plan vs. Putnam Investments.

LOSERS: future college students (from infants to 18yrs old) have to fight Putnam Investments to get the millions they were defrauded while Haldeman made close to
$100 million in 4yrs with his $15 million dollar annual salary and a lion’s share of the $400 million senior management (the very one responsible for the fraud) received from the sale of Putnam. To achieve that astronomical payout, Haldeman probably lost more mutual fund business that any mutual fund company on EARTH in those abysmal four years. Ethical, not in my neighborhood. Earned, if he was really working for the competition. Deserved, if you can keep a secret. Hey, I thought that other defendant, Putnam Trustee Chair John Hill said in defense of Haldeman in his Letter to the Editor of TDR that “Ed, once he found out about the fraud (when was that?), Ed demanded that all shareholders needed to be reimbursed for the millions and millions of dollars in plundered investment savings.” I guess he meant anybody accept those still in diapers up to anyone still in high school. What a guy! The absolute bull shit spewed in defense of Putnam CEO Haldeman on this blog is so full of holes that I could ram the entire Haldeman Ethic center through each and every one of them!

LOSERS: are Putnam Investments, Putnam’s still CEO Haldeman, and Putnam Fund Chair John Hill. Losers because they really think they are beyond reproach, especially from someone as ordinary as myself. I have to admit, it has to be a little embarrassing around their respective boardrooms taking crap from me, (you gotta love that!).

There is nothing like a spirited debate, I guess you still don’t get it. “Liv’in the fall, a fall from grace,” its happening. Your just making it sweeter. You don’t play poker do you? A tilt like you does not come around that often, I’m sure you’ve got a significant chuck of change from the millions in legal fees I unfortunately have made you.

You do understand, you maybe good fighting in a courtroom, but I’m taking this to the street baby.

Now, truthfully, how much do you think you have really have helped out Chuck? Just between you and me.

laconia said...

Scannell, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a critical thinker (and loyal son of Dartmouth) who demands proof to accept any argument. You provide none of any substance, so I'd be remiss if I didn't take you to task for that.

"Haldeman got rich" is no proof of wrongdoing. Of course he did. He's the CEO of a fortune 500 in an era when running a company is about increasing value for executives, not shareholders. His $100M is a given.

Is that right? Maybe not. But that's corporate America right now. And it's certainly not criminal for someone to be a part of it.

If what I've said above that I think exonerates Haldeman from your accusations is "full of holes", then set me straight. Don't offer me and everyone else any of this "damn the man cause he got rich" bullcrap. You reduce yourself to a pathetic whining nobody, instead of the admirable and embattled whistleblower who you once were.

And the fact that the Ohio College Savings Plan lost a lawsuit does not make Ed a bad person, or wrong. I'm sure there are two sides to the story--there must be or theere would not have been a suit. And the fact that a trial jury or judge decided against Ohio's complaint to me means that their claim was more likely without merit than not. Maybe it was a mistaken judgement--who knows--but even if it were, does that make Haldeman a bad person, or unethical? Why was there no appeal? What are the facts that make their side so convincing?

I'm no lawyer, and in fact I hate lawyers and their extortionist fees (do you know that in the 19th century they created their own language in Britain just so they'd be the only people capable of arguing in court?), but I trust in our justice system to determine right and wrong more often than not. If the justice system found in favor of Putnam, then Putnam was probably right. It's not as if the state of Ohio couldn't find as good lawyers as Putnam--we're not talking about some small-town pension plan here.

Haldeman's just a CEO who's done a decent job of fixing a broken company. Of course there are losers. It's business, and it's America, there are always winners and losers. Of course Putnam hemorrhaged AUM after you rightfully exposed their wrongdoings and they lost much of top mgmt who probably attracted those funds. Of course the mutual fund industry is largely a worthless enterprise forced onto Americans in place of the old defined benefit pension fund scheme, and which delivers only a couple hundred extra basis points of returns over interest rates.

But none of that is Ed's fault any more than it is Ned Johnson's or Reynold's or any other CEO.

Come back when you've got any substantial proof that indicates Ed committed a crime, or did something that's explicitly unethical.

As of now, you've given no such proof.

I am Scannell said...

Laconia, ok you win. I will tell you everything! Should we meet at Post Office square? But before I do, please answer me one question. What is it about Chuck that made old alumni buddies at Dartmouth and Harvard take such salacious risks to their reputation only to perpetuate the Big Ds ethical myth. I don’t get it; he had nothing on them at the time. Now they hang in the balance; one more than the other. When Chuck gets in your bed – he ends up with all the covers. Know what I mean? Did you know I broke my leg when I was six skiing in Laconia? I bet that’s the reason you intimidate me so – it certainly isn’t your red herrings. Before I go, back to cards. If you were playing no limit Texas Hold’em, would you show your hole cards to the rest of the table before you push all in? I gotta go; I’m serving in the morning at Sacred Heart. God Bless.

laconia said...

Scannell, nobody hangs in the balance, and there is no "ethical myth" about the College. You are entirely delusional.

I have no stake in this "card game" you have created in your head beyond a curious interest in the truth. You seem to lost sight of such an interest for yourself and gotten wrapped up in your Erin Brokovich fairy tale.

Or else if you haven't, spill your guts and talk facts to support your claims. It should be relatively easy to convince me and everyone else that I am wrong in my analysis above, given how sure you are of the truth of your accusations. So surprise us all, please. And at the end if you want you can include your crude little poem, "blather blather fall from grace blather blather".

Unless you do shock us all with a sudden burst of clear and convincing argument, though I have a few pieces of advice you should think about: take pride where you have been right and confess to any wrongs, get a job that brings meaning to your life, and re-join the real world. In short, grow up.

I am Scannell said...

Good day Laconia, you now are becoming as untruthful as the very subject matter. Or is it because you’ve been ordered to monitor this blog 24/7 – and you’re just exhausted. For you to suggest I have said there is an “ethical myth in regard to Dartmouth College” is oh so telling. As a matter of FACT, in previous post I have stated that “Dartmouth could be considered a National Treasure,” and that “Haldeman is merely hiding under Dartmouth’s skirt of decency.” You very well know for who the “bought and paid for,” ethical myth applies.

There isn’t a Dartmouth student, present or yore, who has reading comprehension skills as poor as you are claiming; unless of course you’re the hired gun I suspect. As for me “spilling my guts” to you and all; if Ed will, I will, or as the case will be, when I do, Ed will.

Hey, look at Harvard… they survived quite well after the university’s president was forced to resign after far less egregious offenses. Actually their endowment took a very nice bump immediately following his ouster. Laconia, there is a liar in the lair, and it is obvious with your stooping to lowly lawyerly tactics, it’s no wonder you’ve been ordered to monitor this blog. Stick to the red herrings, they will get you more breathing room than the out right buffoonery you recently posted. And if you can, (you have my empathy on this as well) keep your composure – your obviously getting steamed.

Returning from church this morning, I found the homily to be most prophetic.
The moral was taking a stand. It was said that standing up for one’s self takes a strong will, and even a stronger will is required standing up for others.

When my seven year old son Paul and I were walking up the hill discussing our
Priest’s comments, Paul exclaimed with seeming pride “Dad that’s what you had done!” Then his expression changed, more than likely thinking about the all the residual consequences. I told my son that his observation is true, and that, unknown to him, I continue the journey to this day. Paul stopped, looked my way, and in a sing songy manner sang, “oh no, something bad going to happen again.” I assured him that this time my back is covered; no one will be able to sneak up on me again. He was relieved.

Once again Laconia, just between you and me, do you still think you’re doing the subject matter any favors?

Sport said...

Laconia said: Putnam Investmets is a Fortune 500 company. Putnam Investments does not even make the Fortune 1000 list.

Increasing value in a company involved in fraud so management, ultimately responsible for Putnam troubles, enrich themselves even further after the fraud was detected. I’m not sure Haldeman would what your support on this business model. Certainly it would not be a model American mutual fund Investors would flock. Laying off hundreds of low level employees when scandal became public to enrich themselves beyond their performance goals and beyond the wildest dreams of those that Putnam is SELLING to is certainly not an attribute to speak of proudly.

You state that you are a Loyal Son of Dartmouth. A loyal son of D would not publicly shame himself and Dartmouth with such admiration. Because something is the way it is, does not make it right. I though my duty to Dartmouth’s legacy was to help change the world for the better, not gravitate to world’s lesser good.

Laconia, you need to understand the mutual fund industry is different. People blindly trust others with their hopes, dreams, and needs.

You should heed I am Scannell’s, you are far too obvious to be doing Haldeman any good and are continuing to make Dartmouth look like fools. It maybe, “We were fooled; we are a not fools;” that is the challenge before us. I know you must be someone’s son, please let them lay claim to that distinction.

I wonder where Laconia plans to interview after Dartmouth?

laconia said...

First Sport, then Scannell.


You're definitely right that Putnam's not a Fortune 500. Sorry about that. I don't know what I was thinking--just a reflex though I guess because it has substantially more "share of mind" than "share of market". I don't think Fidelity would even make the Fortune 1000 list. Apologies there.

As to it being shameful for me to call myself a loyal son of Dartmouth because I acknowledged that the mutual fund industry is somewhat of a sham? Really, you make that connection? I specifically acknowledged that it might not be "right". I just said that you can't call someone a criminal because of that.

The point is that Ed hasn't committed a crime--there is no way to say that he has given the evidence that Scannell has provided (oh wait Scannell, I want evidence?!?!? I MUST be a lawyer then). And rather it looks like Ed almost certainly has not committed the crimes or perpetrated the unethical behavior of which the Review accused him with Scannell as their support.

That's the point here, that Ed's innocent of Scannell's accusations. Scannell's claims, it turns out, are entirely baseless. Read that complaint which he refused to share until I dug it up. There was a reason why, it turns out: Scannell didn't want anyone to call him out on his lies. Sport, I trust you've got a critical head on your shoulders--take a look at that SEC complaint that was Scannell's main evidence for Ed's fraud--what he says is in there isn't there. That's what I'm saying here. That Scannell's full of it.

You can indict corporate America and the mutual fund industry all you want and be critical about executive salaries and wholesale layoffs, but our society and its laws have decided that they're OK, as long as the rules are followed. Scannell alleged that Haldeman broke those rules, but I'm saying that his logic and his evidence are faulty, so therefore it's wrong to say that Haldeman didn't follow the rules. And in fact, since the courts and most of mainstream journalism took a hard look at the facts in 2003, chances are the raving Scannell is entirely wrong. Take that for what it's worth, but regardless, Ed's not a criminal any more than Johnson or Reynolds, that's pretty evident. And to remind you criminal fraud and malicious intent are what Scannell has been claiming throughout, that's what's at stake in this argument. But the thing about baseless arguments are that you can talk around the facts all you want, but you can't win.

Scannell, your most recent contribution is barely worth a response. How can you claim not to have referred to Dartmouth's "ethical myth"? You did so explicitly in 6/28 11:33: "What is it about Chuck that made old alumni buddies at Dartmouth and Harvard take such salacious risks to their reputation only to perpetuate the Big Ds ethical myth." (Which by the way is a borderline loony comment...salacious risks to their reputations, please!)

AND please stop referring to me as a hired gun. I work for a Private Equity shop in Shanghai (hence the 3am EDST entry), and I graduated the College in 1996. I'm only in this argument at this point because I've got plenty of time on my hands these days and I'm interested in proving you wrong because there's nothing worse than a lying rat. (why would you go from a commendable whistleblower who caused real change in a troubled industry (that was 2003) to a slanderous rat(2008)).

Doesn't anyone else think it's reproachable for someone--mentally ill or not--to slander someone so explicitly with false evidence? Doesn't anyone care about the truth here?

I mean Ed's a guy who--his board politics aside--donated $10M to Dartmouth (probably almost 10% of his net worth?). And the thanks we're giving him is believing this loony who can't forgive himself for the fact that he couldn't submit his papers properly in order to collect the $20M+ that he deserved for whistleblowing the actual bad-guys (How proposterous is that, by the way? I'm curious about the details there. Like why on earth is Scannell not suing the state of MA for the money he deserved, and why isn't he taking this out on them?)

I am Scannell said...

Good morning Laconia, when I pen events that will have most of the investing public in this country up in arms, will you then fly home (wink, nod, not a hired gun) and announce to all of Dartmouth your have made a mistake.

You do understand that even at Dartmouth it is possible that every once and a while one of her sons or daughters might go astray. Are all alumni from Dartmouth immune after they leaved its deservedly hallowed halls from being lured by greed through the corruption that permeates much of the investment world? It is so easy. I always will stand by my words.

Saving Dartmouth was never my intent, but if that is residual effect of my second whistles blowing than how wonderful for Dartmouth. Lets get it strait Laconia, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Dartmouth College, you are not aware (because there are some things I’m keeping secret for now) but I have very fond feeling toward Dartmouth for very personal reasons.

You no longer amuse me, your attempt to distract, mislead, and shanghai my words is
as transparent as rice noodles.

Hey, Laconia, why do you think you know what documents I included in my initial whistle blowing attempt? For some reason you think that evidence would appear in the SEC complaint you reference. Hmnn. Pretty convoluted logic. You do understand you’re obviously not as bright as the average Dartmouth son or daughter. Or because you’re paid so well, and your identity is unknown, you can say anything you what because your soul is so shallow. Who else but a hire gun would stoop to your lawyerly lows?

You no longer amuse me, and I have gotten all that I need from you. Thanks for all your help! Your (Haldemans, Hill, Carroll) arguments have all been exposed.

You do understand that there is nothing better I could be doing because what I am doing will be better for all.

Anonymous said...

@Laconia: Donate 10M and 10% of your net worth. Of course more admirable than not doing so. Still, consider the math. 90% left equals 90M. With that size portfolio, expect an above average return... say 10% or 9M per year. If the state and feds take 25%, that's 2.75M a year in taxes, which is reduced by the 10M. So the gift "pays for itself" in 4 years. Not bad... it is effectively a break-even for the donor, a great benefit for the donation receiver, and (in a zero-sum game) a loss for the taxpayer. Society is OK with this because of the longer-term benefits... if they are really there... With endowments in the billions and their rates of return 2-3 times above what individual investors can achieve, should universities operating as businesses still be given such special treatment?

laconia said...

Scannell, how did you get so smart? You're right, I must be a hired gun because I disagree with you. That logic is spot on. It's a wonder you yourself aren't the CEO of a major company.

I have no idea what documents you were using in your initial whistle blowing, but I do know what you were citing in this forum (see June 21 7:51 and June 24 12:56). And I suspect that I had to find the link myself because despite being asked for it you didn't want to provide it. You were hiding that IT DOES NOT CONTAIN WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES.

Scannell, of course if you turn out to be correct and you've successfully blown the whistle a second time, then I'll stand corrected, I'll even give you a call to congratulate you. What I'm saying is that the evidence that you've provided to the Review and to this forum does not prove your claims. You should think it all through yourself--if the SEC investigation determined that Kamshad was able to continue round trip trading because the Putnam Market Timing Dept. was only in operation 3 months out of the year (during which time Kamshad was avoiding trading), how would Haldeman have known? You have not answered that question at all despite the fact that I've asked it repeatedly. And until you do successfully answer that question, it would be foolish for anyone to think that you actually have legitimate claims this time.

The other question is why the funds whose names changed--which you say is a sign that Haldeman was involved in a cover up--are not the funds that the SEC complaint mentions as being manipulated by Kamshad? Can you answer that question too? How is it a cover up if those funds didn't need any covering up?

The reason I have accused you of being delusional/crazy is that you have not answered these questions, yet you continue to make your accusations. I wonder if you just refuse to ask these questions of yourself.

But as anybody with a head on his shoulders will realize, the fact that I'm asking these questions is not an indication of my being "hired", or "shallow". I'm simply being critical of you because you seem to have taken us all for a ride with your speculations.

There is a better way to make money than to blow a false whistle and hope you get your payout this time I don't imagine you'll get it unless you address the questions I've asked above. In all seriousness, why don't you go back to being a waiter, or write a book about your first whistleblowing (the real one)?

laconia said...

@ anon 8:21: point taken. There is definitely less sacrifice involved in a $10M gift than there might first appear to be. And the gift certainly doesn't make Haldeman inviolable.

My point was that as an alum who clearly cares a lot about Dartmouth (agree with him or not, you have to acknowledge this), Ed probably deserves some benefit of the doubt. At least more than Esfahani-Smmith et al. gave him when they actually listened to Scannell without really pressure-testing his evidence.

But the donation of time is probably a better measure than the donation of money. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that he's committed a lot of time to Dartmouth, especially since the regrettable board-expansion plan.

Anon 8:21 said...


I agree with you. I am mostly a supporter of the petition trustees, but I agree the attacks on Ed Haldeman are over the top and uncalled for. The student editors at TDR clearly have not experienced dealing with disgruntled employees.

Note that Trustee Rodgers also defended Haldeman's integrity.

If donating time is a better measure than donating money, one has withheld money out of a principle that it would be misspent, and one then volunteers considerable time to correct this, one should be praised, not criticized. To wit, the situation of all four petition trustees.

laconia said...

@ anon 8:21:

We are on the same page. Those who drove the parity side should certainly not be criticized for their efforts (I can't claim to have donated any time myself). Withholding money at this point is certainly understandable. I'm not sure it's the road I will take, but it's certainly one I will consider if things now change dramatically at the College.

I am generally a supporter of the petition trustees, especially Rodgers and Robinson. I took note of Rodgers' support for Haldeman, but I didn't really take a serious look at the details of Scannell's accusations until this post went up, so I never really thought much of it. Certainly commendable, given what's come to light here.

As to the whole argument about withholding money because it would be misspent, I agree in principle. But someone like Rodgers could certainly make a donation to a specific purpose, like financial aid, a certain professorship, a building he thinks is necessary, etc. Nevertheless, financial support is a choice, so if he chooses to give his time instead of his money, more power to him.

Sport said...

laconia, your getting manhandled!You have to love the "shanghai my words is as transparent as rice noodles" line.

Maybe T.J.Rogers might have had a change of heart since this story broke in TDR.

Keep it up lacinia, but your obsesive conveluted excuses for Sir Ed makes me wonder that maybe you shorting Power Corp stock. You do no thier are many in the private equity sespool who troll for every slimmy opportunity. Some frauds can't make money the old fashioned way - earn it a-hole.

laconia said...

Scannell stop pretending to be sport. Or vice versa. I'm not sure which it is and I don't care. Regardless you've proven yourself(ves) in this forum enemies of everything Dartmouth stands for: sound reason, intelligent discourse and a tradition of integrity, loyalty, and honesty with oneself.

"Sport", your logic makes no sense. Why would I defend Haldeman if I was shorting tsx:POW? And why would a PE shop in Shanghai lead the takeover of a North American company. I'm here to cover China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Further, what about a typical buyout do you think is slimy? Usually shareholders make out pretty well in the takeovers, our LP's get good returns, we get paid well, and more often than not (at least at my firm), we improve the company while it's in our hands.

More importantly, how is any of what I said above convoluted? I ask two very simple questions about major holes in Scannell's story. These are holes that Scannell can't plug, or at least he refuses to plug in this forum. How can you not want his answer? Where is your curiosity? Accepting things on blind-faith, whether they support your opinions or not, is Unamerican, and a disgrace to the Dartmouth education.

Think for yourself, "Sport."

Anonymous said...




A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX