Am I alone in thinking that Rogers comes off looking worse here than his critic? The critic's tone is civil. Rogers' tone is abusive and bombastic. The critic may come off looking like an idiot, but Rogers comes off looking like far worse. I sure wouldn't want to talk to the guy if this is how he reacts to criticism.
I'm not sure the student's tone was "civil." I think he was inarguably condescending, chauvanestic, and insulting. Still, usually in intellectual debates you show up your opponent through a good argument. You don't, as Rogers did, spend half your time on personal insults, and another quarter of the time on self-gratification. His actual counter arguments, in between telling the student he should keep his mouth shut, are few and inexact. But I don't suppose one gets exact arguments when the topic is gambling. So, I'm with you; Rogers comes off like a real jerk. But what should we expect from a egoistic, self-absorbed "capitalist" who's "making it in the real world?"
I am that Mr. Alimov you are discussing. In the interest of full disclosure, Rogers came to HBS class and made several insulting comments about Russia and Russian people in front of 100 of my classmates backed up by "facts" that had nothing to do with reality. When I politely corrected his factual claims, he called me incompetent and left, which set the tone for my first email. As you will see from my emails, I did not try to convince him to invest in Russia (that decision is complex and investor-specific), I simply wanted to get the facts straight. Little did I know that he would write several pages of personal insults in return. As far as facts under discussion, they are pretty well established and I addressed each of his claims in my response.
Thanks for the context, Mr. Alimov; I've added a pointer to the comments to the original post. Your original email was not quite polite, but it helps to know that there had been a prior exchange.
Of course, someone with technical knowledge will have to decide who gets the better of the exchange on the facts.
Mr. Alimov, I was at the talk and watched your original exchange. Your comments were anything but "polite". When he called on you, you began with "I want to correct your mistakes" or something to that effect. It was very condescending and insulting. Jim was invited to the school to talk because he is what he is, a very opinionated, grumpy, interesting, and funny person who made it in this world by either luck or skill. In that context, your job is not to correct people. Feel free to talk about how the person is a complete lunatic afterwards if that is your perogative. You could even ask very subtle questions in the talk to draw out your point and demonstrate that he is insane if that is your desire. That would require elegance and composure, however, and you have neither as you displayed when you came out with guns blazing. I think your reply to Jim and post here demonstrate that you are also delusional. You may be correct on the facts (though there is still room for debate if you actually listened to what he was saying), but I would never say you are "polite" or "respectful".
Dear John D., for your reference I started my comment with the words "Mr. Rogers, with all due respect..." which I don't think is impolite. By the way, thank you for telling me what my "job" is. I realize that you have a view on how to approach people like Mr. Rogers and I respect that. However, in this case not only were his facts inaccurate, he also made insulting comments about the country which I call my home. Imagine for a second that you were in school in Europe and someone started badmouthing the US using bogus facts? Would you focus on "elegance" or would you correct that person?
Finally, if you are in fact one of my classmates who was at the talk (which I am not sure you are), why didn't you have the courage to write me directly or at least identify yourself?
I have just come across your "constructive discussion" with Mr. Rogers. I was a little surprised to see your original e-mail. Although constructive it was not “pleasant”. But it was nothing comparing to Roger's response. To say the truth, I could hardly believe my eyes. Or is that the way a world celebrity should react to a “gullible lad” who “can neither read nor comprehend what he reads”?
I also happen to have some relation to Russian macro situation monitoring (and that is why to the issues of statistics quality too). So, the topic of your debate was very engaging. It is difficult to judge since I am not sure what time horizon Mr. Rogers refers his arguments to. But it strongly looks like he still has a 1998 impression of Russia. Looks like he does not take into account that the situation (at least macroeconomically) is very different now. It is not clear to me why would one want to take historical data (for previous 9 years) to assess future perspectives of the country that came though such a tremendous transitional shock. What relevance do 5-year-old events have to the ruble future performance without referring to the factors that determined that performance 5 years ago and discussing how they have changed/ didn’t change. His comment about oil price and Russian oil production was just marvelous! Enjoyed it a lot. I wonder how many freshman students of Economics might have said the same.
It is very nice to see that there are courageous people to challenge “legendary investors”. So, please accept my sympathy.
I never though about reading Roger’s book. But after reading that “great piece” for Roger’s response, I think I might change my mindJ It is now interesting to see what the person who could present only very weak and emotion-based points about Russia has to say about other countries he visited in his yellow Mercedes.
Good Luck at HBS, because God knows you will need it! I hope you are proud of yourself and feeling empowered, because your little "stunt" may cost you on the professional front down the road. Just not smart! While it is important to question and challenge, if you were truly interested in "intellectual discourse" your original e-mail would not have been so pathetic. I realize that you were motivated by silly nationalistic pride and some underlying insecurity. Rogers' response (whether you agree with his analysis or not) was right on! Little presumptious lads such as yourself need to be put into their place, and frankly have no place in the professional world. Not sure if you have alot to learn or are just beyond it.
So much for Harvard and the CFA designation! You are an embarrassment to both, but mainly to yourself. MBA, CFA, ASS!
You are pathetic bitter loser(s). If anyone is insecure, that's you. It is easy to hide behind fake names and insult someone who has the balls to question Rogers' bullshit (did you read the emails and did you check the facts???). I am surprised that this blog did not delete your comments - they have zero substance and they use the same obsene language Rogers used. That's a shame...
Dmitry, I too felt you came off better in the exchange and that your tone was far more civil than Mr. Roger's. I also spotted the bogus Russian oil production/price of oil argument and that made me wonder as well. If you're curious, there is also a discussion thread about your e-mail on www.analystforum.com, a forum for CFA candidates and charterholders...
It's interesting that one of the writers to this blog expressed her interest in reading JR's book, just to enjoy the display of his incompetence. Indeed any publicity is good and I think that both Mr.Alimov career and Mr.Rogers's book will benefit from this discussion. However if I were invested in Roger's fund I'd hedge my bets by taking some of my money out.
Jim Rogers, the so-called Indiana Jones of finance, is among those businessmen who, though not exactly hard-knocks graduates (Rogers attended Yale and Oxford), feel that the important lessons for achieving success are more apt to be gleaned from, say, a motorcycle ride across Siberia (Rogers holds two Guinness World Records for travelling around the globe) than from any formal schooling, least of all an M.B.A. program. Nonetheless, Rogers, like many moguls, is a happy participant in the B-school lecture circuit, on which C.E.O.s, studio executives, and authors get paid essentially to recount their own achievements, and perhaps to promote their latest projects—in Rogers's case, a new book, "Adventure Capitalist."
It was during one such appearance, at Harvard Business School the other day, that Rogers, wearing his usual bow tie and employing his Alabama drawl, first encountered Dmitry Alimov, and set off a chain of correspondence that future students would do well to examine. It is a case study in making a name for oneself, or making a fool of oneself—depending on your point of view. Dmitry, who is twenty-nine, is a native of Russia and a former employee of Gazprom, the Russian conglomerate. Like Rogers, he is an inveterate international traveller; unlike Rogers, he dresses the part of a post-Soviet European (white jeans, big collars, "Armani-type stuff"), and has chosen to enroll in business school. (He's HBS '04.) Dmitry is also the type of business student who raises his hand a lot, as he did when Rogers hammered on one of his favorite themes—that Russia, though full of adventure, is devoid of real capital ("It's a disaster spiralling downward into a catastrophe"), and unworthy of investment.
Dmitry stood and aired his disagreements. Rogers more or less dismissed them. So that night, Dmitry wrote Rogers an e-mail. "I am the ‘lad' who disputed your factual claims with regard to Russia today," it began. He identified three specific allegations that Rogers had made: people are leaving Russia ("wrong"); Russia's oil production is declining, and oil companies are not reinvesting ("wrong and wrong"); investors are abandoning Russia ("wrong again"). "Many people, including future leaders at Harvard Business School, listen to you," he concluded. "It would be very unfortunate if they were misled by your inaccurate statements. Finally, if nothing else, it is not good for your own public image." He added a postscript: "I took the liberty of sending a copy of this e-mail to my fellow students so that we can set the record straight."
Round two came the following morning, in an e-mail reply from Rogers: "I rarely suffer fools gladly, and even more rarely bother with chauvinistic know-nothings, but since you sent this ludicrous canard . . ." Dmitry was gullible, Rogers said, for believing in data provided by the Russian government and the World Bank, among other things. "If you really believe all this codswallop, why are you in business school?" Rogers wrote. "Why aren't you there making your fortune?" He continued, "I was terribly embarrassed for you when you stood there babbling on in front of the others about the strong ruble . . . , but now you have shouted your hopelessness from the rooftops for all to see." Rogers, not to be outshouted, copied Dmitry's classmates on the response.
Round three, later that night. "I see that you prefer the language of personal insults instead of informed polite discussion," Dmitry, now a minor celebrity on the south bank of the Charles, replied (again to all). This time, he affixed evidence supplied by the U.S. government as well. "Let me know if you desire to see my bank statements and resume. . . . I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, maybe even compare them to yours when you were my tender age, for a real awakening."
Within days, the complete works of Rogers-Alimov, running to a few thousand words, had become one of those e-mails forwarded with great alacrity and mirth among Wall Street firms, British parliamentary committees, and salesmen in Korea. Typical reactions could be broken down into four categories: those from people who have always suspected that business school is a sham ("Jim Rogers kicking some B-school ass"); from the usual array of Harvard-haters; from certain fellow M.B.A. aspirants (to Dmitry: "Keep up the good work, and don't let him get to you. You are representing us well"); and—case students, take note—from employers who have been moved to offer Dmitry a job ("If you would ever consider working for an investment bank . . . ").
Round four has yet to be fought, although by late last week a side skirmish had broken out—copied to everyone, of course—between Rogers and Boris Jurash, an employee in the British Department of Constitutional Affairs (Boris: "I just like winding up smug-heads like yourself." Rogers: "It is clear English is not a language in which you are proficient." Boris: "Don't be a twit, and stop clogging the Net"). Rogers seems to have lost interest in debating Dmitry, meanwhile, as he travels to promote his book. "I don't know why I even bothered to answer that guy in the first place," he said, over the phone. "Whether oil production is up five or six per cent is pretty meaningless in the context of this discussion, which was, and is, that Russia's a hopeless place to invest."
"My take on this is that Rogers can't respond based on facts, because he knows his facts are wrong," Dmitry said. "My best guess is he probably never had the chance to go to business school, and he probably had this feeling of being a little bit inadequate about that."
"Inadequate," in Rogers's view, of course, is a term that might better be applied to Dmitry. "All over the world people are saying, ‘What's wrong with this guy?'" Rogers said. "From the responses I've got, this makes him look like a fool."
Read this response to Dmitry/Jim from an equity strategist of a brokerage firm - CCed to Dmitry's classmates.
Dear Dmitry,
I am sure you have been, by now, inundated with e-mails of support after that truly amazing missive from that little twerp Rogers. I can assure you that it is provoking great mirth around Moscow.
The man is arrogant, rude and ignorant to a degree even beyond that to which I have become accustomed after a long career in finance. I have never met him - but from his letter, I imagine him very short, and having great difficulty getting laid. His comically insecure arrogance is reminiscent of the Proust's pathetic Baron de Charlus. Profound insecurity transpires everywhere; he is driven to continually remind us of his brilliance, with the corollary that anyone who disagrees with him is not merely misinformed, but is indeed a total fool, deserving only of his scorn. Common courtesy seems alien to him.
Yes, he can drive a bike; indeed, he has made some money (he repeatedly reminds us of what a genius he is - although perhaps "Fooled by Randomness" would be a rather better reference than "Money Masters of our Time."). What I wonder is whether he has put his money where his mouth is and shorted Russia, beginning in 1999. Perhaps he shorted the bonds - after a 1000% rise even such a genius as he must be getting a bit nervous! Perhaps Yukos, now a $30 bn company after its 3000% percent rise was also on his shorts list.I don't usually suffer from Shadensfreude, but I admit that I almost hope so. Ordinarily, I would not stoop to arguments ad hominem, but Rogers' rudeness goes far beyond anything one ordinarily encounters in discussions amongst supposedly sane people. He affirms his intellectual superiority by screeching "You really should have kept your mouth shut"
- his stylistic genius by starting paragraphs with "Oh my" and "my goodness". and this gentleman claims to be a writer?
Apparently, a successful career in money management has done nothing to shelter his fragile ego. When he tells us that "All the public is extremely aware (sic) of my record of investing in many markets all over the world for many years" (verily, it thinks of nothing else!) and ends his note by inserting a book review from Amazon.com - surely the ante-room to the Noble prize - he goes from the sublime to the grotesque.
His counter-arguments show either an unusual degree of bad faith, extreme ignorance, or some mixture of the two:
1. People are indeed, as you claimed, flowing back to Moscow. Try
booking an inbound ticket on B.A! My mail box is jammed with CV's from investment bankers who are suddenly discovering a "long standing interest in Russia." None of them are from the ex-USSR. We ourselves have recently hired several Russian repats, in one case, winning the person away from a bulge-bracket US investment house. Recent articles on Bloomberg, FT, and WSJ all note that Russia is the flavour of the week in investment banking.this time, for good reason!
2. Rogers here becomes ridiculous. Every single source, BP, IEA,
EIU and the international oil audit agencies all show similar increases in Russian oil production and reserves. Are they all smoking dope? Does this guy know what the entire planet ignores? Presumably, BP did its due diligence before buying TNK. The Western oil majors are fighting each other tooth and nail for stakes in the other Russian oils, I wonder why. His point about why have oil prices not collapsed is equally ridiculous
- perhaps it has something to do with the United States occupation of Iraq proving to be less than a roaring success.perhaps growth in Chinese consumption - up 19% last year - could begin to explain something. Did you ever hear of Venezuela, Mr. Rogers? Accelerating Russian economic growth is, again, obvious for all to see - all, that is, with the intellectual honesty to admit they were wrong. In this context, we all remember the former correspondent of The Economist in Moscow, Edward Lucas; although Ed was certainly no fan of Russia, he did have the good faith to admit that his bearish predictions had simply not been borne out by events. He left as he arrived - a Russia bear, but he showed a fair measure of dignity.
3. Roger's third point has a small grain of truth. The Russian
equity market IS still very narrow. It is not yet use to for capital raising, although it now certainly is used for corp fin purposes, i.e. to buy physical assets. This has not prevented the RTS from being the world's best performing index for the past several years! While the market remains narrow, we are now awaiting the next phase, a wave of IPOs, presumably once domestic interest rates rise above the rate of inflation.
None of this, of course, precludes one's making money. Many of the big hedge funds have been heavily involved, and those I speak with have made out brilliantly! Dividend yields have been increasing while corporate governance IS clearly improving - though from a very low baseline, and not quite as fast as we would have liked.
The Russian debt market is, on the other hand, large, liquid, fast-growing and reasonably transparent. Although markets do occasionally drift a long way from their fundamentals, they invariably correct fairly quickly. Anyone who imagines that the historic crunch in Russian yields over the past 5 years ignores the economic realities (the Rf05 recently traded at a yield of 3.01.that's the RATE, not the
spread!) is either culpably ignorant or simply trying to defend a previous bad call. Again, if Mr. Rogers wishes to short the Russian market, my own firm would be delighted to help!
As we all know, Russia blew a magnificent bubble in 1996-97. History doe not repeat itself - historians repeat themselves.Russian is currently running what is arguably the world's most conservative macroeconomic policy. Reserves are soaring; international debt is being paid down fast, while economic growth is beginning to rival that of China. Huge problems remain.but it is the wilful and arrogant misconceptions of men like Mr. Rogers which makes Russia such an easy place to make money - one simply trades against their ignorance.
Dmitriy, we foreigners are yesterday's news in Russia.the future belongs to the Russians who have gone abroad, learned what was useful in the West, and are now coming home to apply it to the unique Russian context. I sincerely wish you well.
My amateur impression has been that the biggest long-term threat to economic development in Russia was the relative absence of the rule of law in corporate dealings, property titles, etc... I would love to hear the opinions of the various informed commentators on this thread.
Thank You for your kind words. We apologize if we come across using "Rogers" language, but you clearly use "Alimov" language. Yes, we did read the emails (our office has been innundated with them) and we have checked the facts, thank you. As co-managers and sub-advisers to several Eastern European Private Equity Funds we know the region well and do our own extensive research. Frankly, we disagree with both of them and our research paints a different picture.
To the point:
We didn't insult Alimov's "questioning" or his "position". Frankly, it is a difference in opinions that make markets. You obviously didn't read carefully the first comment. What we do take issue with, is his approach. There lies the problem. People seem to be taking sides without regard to approriate behavior.
It isn't whether Rogers or Alimov is correct, it is about the little stunt that Alimov has set in motion, and then the continued behaviour. We don't see room for this in the investment world.
In reply to Alimov's posting of New Yorker Piece:
Not sure why you chose to post it. It doesn't paint a complimentary picture of yourself.
Harbus, on campus student paper at HBS, published the following (I understand Dalai Lama also made an appearance on campus recently).
The Dalai Lama and Jim Rogers E-mail Exchange
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:27 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: The Real Facts About Tibet
Dalai,
I was an unhappy witness to your "talk" on campus today. What a bunch of codswallop!
Before I refute your ludicrous canards, perhaps I should introduce myself: My name is Jim Rogers, and I am a very rich man. I know that Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and I think it is safe to say that I have made more money in my one life than you will make in all of yours combined.
In the past, I have circled the world on a motorcycle, which put me in the Guinness Book of World Records. Maybe you've heard of it. Most recently, I traveled to 116 countries over three years in a souped-up yellow Mercedes with my wife, who happens to be a hot chick.
I also wrote a book about my interest in my adventures.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that my world travels have made me an expert on every major economic, political and social issue of our day. I have also repeatedly drunk unpasteurized camel milk.
Some Wall Street bankers consider me their God, but I was raised a modest Southern boy, so I prefer to think of myself as a God rather than The God.
Given my credentials, I know enough to be embarrassed for you when you say things like "Tibet is a holy place."
I have driven thru Tibet with a hot chick in a yellow Mercedes, and Tibet is no holy place. It is a flea-infested swath of land fit only for yaks and monks. Your one and only hope for economic development is to put ski lifts on the Himalayas.
Please start a company and go public so I can short it.
Sincerely,
Jim Rogers
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:23 PM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: The Real Facts About Tibet
Mr. Rogers,
Thank you for attending my talk at Harvard and for corresponding with me afterward.
Your anger and sarcasm indicate a soul that suffers, and the Buddha teaches us that we must help to reduce human suffering. I will meditate on your situation.
With kindness,
The Dalai Lama
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:25 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: Return of the Ludicrous Canards
Hello Dalai,
What a load of tommyrot! Do I strike you as a guy who needs your meditation? Perhaps you should open up the Guinness Book. Turn to page 123. Look between the world's longest prehensile tail and the guy with the most needles stuck in his ass. Who is that? That's right, it's me.
I'm filthy rich and I have traveled the world and eaten kangaroo meat, possum and silkworms. With a hot chick by my side. Meanwhile, what have you got? A flouncy maroon robe and Richard Gere's phone number. Maybe I should be meditating for you instead.
If you were smart, you'd reincarnate yourself as me 25 years ago and make a gargooglian amount of money like I did. Maybe you could use it to fund the world's largest "Free Tibet" bumper sticker and finally make your way into the Guinness Book.
Keep on chanting,
Jim Rogers
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2003 10:38 AM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: Return of the Ludicrous Canards
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The Buddha teaches us to have compassion for our adversaries. In fact, he teaches us that we should thank them for giving us the opportunity to exercise patience and tolerance. You have been most generous in this regard.
I will continue to reflect on your situation and to meditate on your suffering.
With kindness,
The Dalai Lama
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:27 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
You really should have kept your Tibetan yapper shut, but since you opened it: Your lesson about "showing compassion to one's adversaries" didn't come from Buddha--it came from the Russian government! I didn't think even holy men fell for that Commie shtinkenbooey anymore.
Let's review the facts, shall we?
- Jim Rogers: yellow Mercedes, married to hot chick
- Dalai: sandals, worships fat guy
Short Buddhism,
Jim
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
The Buddha does not ordinarily get involved with day-to-day human affairs, but in this case, he made an exception. He has arranged for you to be reincarnated as a pouchless kangaroo raised for meat. You will also have fleas.
The Buddha would also like to suggest that you undertake your next round-the-world journey in a 1973 monkey-butt-pink Ford Pinto, with a vanity license plate that says, "RAM ME."
The author of the Dalai Lama comments got to the core of this debate with his witty buddhism 'fable.'
In the grand scheme of things, this story is about patience and decency, and Jim Rogers, despite being rich (so what) and famous (fame is fleeting) is quite a worthless individual. Does money determine whether someone is noble and fair, decent or brilliant? Aren't people supposed to have advanced since the Middle Ages and understood that not money alone deserves respect? What DOES derserve respect is the courage to stand up for one's beliefs and opinions. Have you done it? Do you know what it feels like to have the guts to defend your point of view? If not, I recommend you do it at least once before you turn into dust. Don't worry about the people who will get pissed at you, just do it for yourself.
***Much to do about nothing. Not impressed with Rogers or the punk.*** not so fast, Mr... it would be like you say if this would concern Mr Alimov HBS and Ms Vomila SBH... but here people discuss the ugly rebuke of ‘'said to be'' market legend made for simple punk (as you defined Alimov yourself). Assuming Alimov is indeed this punk I would expect him and not Rogers Jimmy to resort to cheap profane language. Of course Alimov should not have started his email by challenging in ultimate way some arguments Rogers made during his speech. Still Rogers, if he would be what some people think he is, should have either skipped replying to Alimov or should have done it in polite but definitive manner to preclude Mr. Alimov from replying back.
PS: it was not the issue whose facts about Russia were correct or plain wrong. The issue was how both investment guru Rogers and punk Alimov failed at large in communicating to each other. whether a punk might be excused, for Rogers there is little excuse in this situation.
Did someone notice a comment from JohnD? His comment explains why some people like Jim Rogers feel free about going ballistic and find this their natural way of response. So why? Simply because losers, in our instance like JohnD here, find extreme pleasure to beg to winners like Jim … they not listen to what Rogers say but they are amuzed by a fact of being able to stand close and listen irregardless of what rubbish might pop out of Rogers mouth… so you see how JohnD speaks himself about Jim Rogers here, it feels like he is about to touch Jim butt with his nose. Alimov might indeed should not have responded the way he did beginning with correcting Rogers and copying his classmates… but Alimov actually explained why he did it and this deserves some respect. Otherwise we all must do up to JohnD of silencing yourself no matter what assault or rubbish happens, but this is a way of true loser which probably JohnD is himself.
I just read the whole discussion on analystforum (?) and I really fail to understand why people there make such a big deal out of Dmitry CC'ing his class-mates.. As he himself said:
"In the interest of full disclosure, Rogers came to HBS class and made several insulting comments about Russia and Russian people in front of 100 of my classmates backed up by "facts" that had nothing to do with reality."
In Dmitry's eyes, the guy insulted the students' intelligence by providing inaccurate 'facts' and overall bad-mouthed his land of origin AND his people. Since Rogers refuses to argue during his lecture, Dmitry absolutely rightfully takes the discussion offline not forgetting all the people present at the original lecture by CC'ing them.. Whats wrong? Totally reasonable approach if you ask me..
Also, i find Rogers' unintelligible ramblings about forced immigration of population of Soviet republics INTO Russia during soviet years completely laughable, i think he meant it to be the other way around, at least the european portion anyways.
And i don't really understand how anyone can deny the fact that these days people are immigrating into Russia at higher rates than they leave? I think he meant jewish population fleeing Soviet Union during the repressions and all that crap some 40-20 years ago...
This posting was published in Harvard student newspaper. I suspect, it's just joke, but who knows? Enjoy!
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:27 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: The Real Facts About Tibet
Dalai,
I was an unhappy witness to your "talk" on campus today. What a bunch of codswallop!
Before I refute your ludicrous canards, perhaps I should introduce myself: My name is Jim Rogers, and I am a very rich man. I know that Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and I think it is safe to say that I have made more money in my one life than you will make in all of yours combined.
In the past, I have circled the world on a motorcycle, which put me in the Guinness Book of World Records. Maybe you've heard of it. Most recently, I traveled to 116 countries over three years in a souped-up yellow Mercedes with my wife, who happens to be a hot chick.
I also wrote a book about my interest in my adventures.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that my world travels have made me an expert on every major economic, political and social issue of our day. I have also repeatedly drunk unpasteurized camel milk.
Some Wall Street bankers consider me their God, but I was raised a modest Southern boy, so I prefer to think of myself as a God rather than The God.
Given my credentials, I know enough to be embarrassed for you when you say things like "Tibet is a holy place."
I have driven thru Tibet with a hot chick in a yellow Mercedes, and Tibet is no holy place. It is a flea-infested swath of land fit only for yaks and monks. Your one and only hope for economic development is to put ski lifts on the Himalayas.
Please start a company and go public so I can short it.
Sincerely,
Jim Rogers
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:23 PM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: The Real Facts About Tibet
Mr. Rogers,
Thank you for attending my talk at Harvard and for corresponding with me afterward.
Your anger and sarcasm indicate a soul that suffers, and the Buddha teaches us that we must help to reduce human suffering. I will meditate on your situation.
With kindness,
The Dalai Lama
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:25 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: Return of the Ludicrous Canards
Hello Dalai,
What a load of tommyrot! Do I strike you as a guy who needs your meditation? Perhaps you should open up the Guinness Book. Turn to page 123. Look between the world's longest prehensile tail and the guy with the most needles stuck in his ass. Who is that? That's right, it's me.
I'm filthy rich and I have traveled the world and eaten kangaroo meat, possum and silkworms. With a hot chick by my side. Meanwhile, what have you got? A flouncy maroon robe and Richard Gere's phone number. Maybe I should be meditating for you instead.
If you were smart, you'd reincarnate yourself as me 25 years ago and make a gargooglian amount of money like I did. Maybe you could use it to fund the world's largest "Free Tibet" bumper sticker and finally make your way into the Guinness Book.
Keep on chanting,
Jim Rogers
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2003 10:38 AM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: Return of the Ludicrous Canards
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The Buddha teaches us to have compassion for our adversaries. In fact, he teaches us that we should thank them for giving us the opportunity to exercise patience and tolerance. You have been most generous in this regard.
I will continue to reflect on your situation and to meditate on your suffering.
With kindness,
The Dalai Lama
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:27 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
You really should have kept your Tibetan yapper shut, but since you opened it: Your lesson about "showing compassion to one's adversaries" didn't come from Buddha--it came from the Russian government! I didn't think even holy men fell for that Commie shtinkenbooey anymore.
Let's review the facts, shall we?
- Jim Rogers: yellow Mercedes, married to hot chick
- Dalai: sandals, worships fat guy
Short Buddhism,
Jim
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
The Buddha does not ordinarily get involved with day-to-day human affairs, but in this case, he made an exception. He has arranged for you to be reincarnated as a pouchless kangaroo raised for meat. You will also have fleas.
The Buddha would also like to suggest that you undertake your next round-the-world journey in a 1973 monkey-butt-pink Ford Pinto, with a vanity license plate that says, "RAM ME."
Russian students in Ottawa show deep respect to you. what the hell Jim Rogers knows about Russia? Not very much. If you may be notice he did argue even not with you but with common sense in whole. He did everything to persuade us how he hates Russia. And i'm realy glad to find out that in Harvard there is at least one russian guy who loves OUR country and i hope, will do his best (as well as myself) to make OUR nation many times more rich and prosperous.
It may not be correct to comment in such a one-sided manner without Mr. Rogers not being a party to it. True that his tone smacked of arrogance, but if Dmitry was emotional about his country, Mr. Rogers was emotional about his knowledge and the skills with which he has made money and is succesful.
These are not equal grounds.
By the way, just wondering if somebody cared to check the source of the reply which is supposed to have come from rogers, my take is a person cannot be that arrogant, is it all stage-managed?
In B-school circles, a great deal of energy goes into assuring that name-brand guest speakers are treaded with a certain degree of reverence, regardless of whether or not they've had anything enlightening to say. I can only imagine that Mr. Alimov got some combination of "Attaboy!" and "I can't beleive you did that, you a**hole!" from his classmates.
The ensuing email exchange says a great deal about both participants, and I think Mr. Rogers comes off worse only because he has more to lose reputationally.
And, on the whole, Mr. Alimov may very well have benefitted from the exchange, as he has gotten a fair degree of publicity among people in the financial community who may be predisposed to his brand of faux-polite aggression.
it's pretty clear that rogers' comments would be more well received by the financial community. there is absolutely nothing redeemable about Dmitry Alimov's comments. the resentment towards business school goes a long way. we had a real laugh at dmitry's expense at morgan stanley.
I think that considering the events that have recently played out in Russia from the time this email exchange occurred have gone to show that Rogers' was right to be suspicious of investment in russia. I'm sure investors in Yukos would agree.
To add to that point, I don't think Rogers was wrong in his facts as many have stated on this board. Neither side to this debate ever stated a time period in which they were referring to in which growth or lack there of occurred. In Mr. Rogers case it seems that he took a longer term view of the situation (which is consistent to his investment style in general from my understanding), AND due to the fact that there are still alot of suspect individuals running the adminstration his skepticism in recent growth was/is warrented.
Further, it is odd that people on this thread are bashing Rogers so frequently. I'll agree his response was quite arrogant but to challenge his ability as an investor is quite a bold statement. A track record like his is evidence enough for me to prove that he is a very talented investor. Just research his track record as head analyst with George Soros, or his new managed futures fund.
I am traveling to Russia on vacation 2 weeks from now, and looking forward immensely to meeting Dima Alimov in person and shaking his had over a drink or two!
Your redaction of the cc's is to be saluted, but let it not go unmentioned that our hero cc'd about 20 of his classmates, as did Mr. Rogers...
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 7:56 PM
Did I say 20? I meant 40...
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-12-03 7:57 PM
Am I alone in thinking that Rogers comes off looking worse here than his critic? The critic's tone is civil. Rogers' tone is abusive and bombastic. The critic may come off looking like an idiot, but Rogers comes off looking like far worse. I sure wouldn't want to talk to the guy if this is how he reacts to criticism.
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 09-13-03 10:00 AM
That last 'like' is a typo. I'm not lapsing into '80s valley speak.
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 09-13-03 10:02 AM
I'm not sure the student's tone was "civil." I think he was inarguably condescending, chauvanestic, and insulting. Still, usually in intellectual debates you show up your opponent through a good argument. You don't, as Rogers did, spend half your time on personal insults, and another quarter of the time on self-gratification. His actual counter arguments, in between telling the student he should keep his mouth shut, are few and inexact. But I don't suppose one gets exact arguments when the topic is gambling. So, I'm with you; Rogers comes off like a real jerk. But what should we expect from a egoistic, self-absorbed "capitalist" who's "making it in the real world?"
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-13-03 12:13 PM
wow. SSSSSMMMMMMMAACCKKKKK!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-13-03 4:57 PM
I am that Mr. Alimov you are discussing. In the interest of full disclosure, Rogers came to HBS class and made several insulting comments about Russia and Russian people in front of 100 of my classmates backed up by "facts" that had nothing to do with reality. When I politely corrected his factual claims, he called me incompetent and left, which set the tone for my first email. As you will see from my emails, I did not try to convince him to invest in Russia (that decision is complex and investor-specific), I simply wanted to get the facts straight. Little did I know that he would write several pages of personal insults in return. As far as facts under discussion, they are pretty well established and I addressed each of his claims in my response.
Posted by Dmitry Alimov | Link to this comment | 09-15-03 2:05 PM
Thanks for the context, Mr. Alimov; I've added a pointer to the comments to the original post. Your original email was not quite polite, but it helps to know that there had been a prior exchange.
Of course, someone with technical knowledge will have to decide who gets the better of the exchange on the facts.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-15-03 4:05 PM
Mr. Alimov, I was at the talk and watched your original exchange. Your comments were anything but "polite". When he called on you, you began with "I want to correct your mistakes" or something to that effect. It was very condescending and insulting. Jim was invited to the school to talk because he is what he is, a very opinionated, grumpy, interesting, and funny person who made it in this world by either luck or skill. In that context, your job is not to correct people. Feel free to talk about how the person is a complete lunatic afterwards if that is your perogative. You could even ask very subtle questions in the talk to draw out your point and demonstrate that he is insane if that is your desire. That would require elegance and composure, however, and you have neither as you displayed when you came out with guns blazing. I think your reply to Jim and post here demonstrate that you are also delusional. You may be correct on the facts (though there is still room for debate if you actually listened to what he was saying), but I would never say you are "polite" or "respectful".
Posted by John D. | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 7:56 AM
Dear John D., for your reference I started my comment with the words "Mr. Rogers, with all due respect..." which I don't think is impolite. By the way, thank you for telling me what my "job" is. I realize that you have a view on how to approach people like Mr. Rogers and I respect that. However, in this case not only were his facts inaccurate, he also made insulting comments about the country which I call my home. Imagine for a second that you were in school in Europe and someone started badmouthing the US using bogus facts? Would you focus on "elegance" or would you correct that person?
Finally, if you are in fact one of my classmates who was at the talk (which I am not sure you are), why didn't you have the courage to write me directly or at least identify yourself?
Posted by Dmitry Alimov | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 11:52 AM
Dear Dmitry,
I have just come across your "constructive discussion" with Mr. Rogers. I was a little surprised to see your original e-mail. Although constructive it was not “pleasant”. But it was nothing comparing to Roger's response. To say the truth, I could hardly believe my eyes. Or is that the way a world celebrity should react to a “gullible lad” who “can neither read nor comprehend what he reads”?
I also happen to have some relation to Russian macro situation monitoring (and that is why to the issues of statistics quality too). So, the topic of your debate was very engaging. It is difficult to judge since I am not sure what time horizon Mr. Rogers refers his arguments to. But it strongly looks like he still has a 1998 impression of Russia. Looks like he does not take into account that the situation (at least macroeconomically) is very different now. It is not clear to me why would one want to take historical data (for previous 9 years) to assess future perspectives of the country that came though such a tremendous transitional shock. What relevance do 5-year-old events have to the ruble future performance without referring to the factors that determined that performance 5 years ago and discussing how they have changed/ didn’t change. His comment about oil price and Russian oil production was just marvelous! Enjoyed it a lot. I wonder how many freshman students of Economics might have said the same.
It is very nice to see that there are courageous people to challenge “legendary investors”. So, please accept my sympathy.
I never though about reading Roger’s book. But after reading that “great piece” for Roger’s response, I think I might change my mindJ It is now interesting to see what the person who could present only very weak and emotion-based points about Russia has to say about other countries he visited in his yellow Mercedes.
Regards from Moscow,
Olga
Posted by Olga | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 4:25 AM
Dear Dmitry:
Good Luck at HBS, because God knows you will need it! I hope you are proud of yourself and feeling empowered, because your little "stunt" may cost you on the professional front down the road. Just not smart! While it is important to question and challenge, if you were truly interested in "intellectual discourse" your original e-mail would not have been so pathetic. I realize that you were motivated by silly nationalistic pride and some underlying insecurity. Rogers' response (whether you agree with his analysis or not) was right on! Little presumptious lads such as yourself need to be put into their place, and frankly have no place in the professional world. Not sure if you have alot to learn or are just beyond it.
So much for Harvard and the CFA designation! You are an embarrassment to both, but mainly to yourself. MBA, CFA, ASS!
EPO
Posted by EPO | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 6:31 PM
Regardless of what you think of Rogers, who the hell is this shit head Dmitry Alimov?
Posted by C Corbin | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 6:43 PM
Surprised that Jim Rogers wasted time replying to the idiot.
Posted by James N | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 6:56 PM
Ok, those last three all came from the same IP address, so I think you (or you all) have made your point.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 6:58 PM
same office!
Posted by James N | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 7:01 PM
EPO / E Corbin / James N
You are pathetic bitter loser(s). If anyone is insecure, that's you. It is easy to hide behind fake names and insult someone who has the balls to question Rogers' bullshit (did you read the emails and did you check the facts???). I am surprised that this blog did not delete your comments - they have zero substance and they use the same obsene language Rogers used. That's a shame...
Posted by Linda T. | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 10:01 AM
This blogger's initial caption of this story: "If you're going to make
a complete fool of yourself, don't do it in an email that you send to
thirty people. And if you're going to call an international authority
an idiot regarding his topic of expertise, be exceedingly sure that
you have your facts straight" - struck me as truly bizarre.
Dmitry Alimov's letter was a bit testy, but nothing out of line in such
academic dispute (neither he called Jim Rogers an idiot, although the
latter behaved like one). I myself attended hundreds of talks and
conferences at MIT (where I've got my Ph.D.), Harvard and other places,
where such tone is considered quite normal. Neither it is unusual for
the mainstream media. There are, for example, Opeds and editorials every
day in Wall Street Journal that are ten times crankier.
D. Alimov presents figures, references and factual data. One could find
them convincing or not (personally I agree with him, but can respect an
opposite - if informed - opinion). But Jim Roger's response was nothing
like that. It spends 90% of space in personal insults and crude self-promotion.
J.R. could choose not to reply at all, if he didn't have much to say on the
subject, instead he started pompous rants, with very little substance.
And in rare instances when he is not throwing insults, he is unconvincing.
Just one of his phrases: "if Russian oil production is really up so much,
why is the price of oil still so high?" - any Economics-101 student will
be ridiculed for such "argument".
I myself was investing in Russia for the last several years, doing very
well there - precisely by NOT listening to people like Jim Rogers.
I've came across this exchange after it was mentioned and discussed in one
Internet forum for seasoned emerging market investors (with participants
from many different countries). The opinion was unanimous: J. Rogers has
shown himself a complete fool.
About Russia he is uninformed to a preposterous degree. I remember one of
his travel articles on Moscow-Siberia trip a few years ago (I think it was
in the "Worth" magazine), where claimed among other things that most
Russians live in houses without any plumbing or modern amenities. This
struck me as quite odd and plain silly, but then I've seen in the article
where this claim came from: it was based not on any factual data, but on
impression he's got looking out of the window of a train or a car. He didn't
realize that most of what he've seen on the roadside were dachas (often
just simple toolsheds or small wooden dwellings with separate outhouses),
not people's primary residences!
So much for his "deep" insight. Jim Rogers is laughable.
Posted by Kirill Pankratov, Ph.D. | Link to this comment | 09-19-03 11:29 AM
Kirill,
If possible, you should post a link to that discussion of Dmitry & Rogers's exchange. Readers of this blog might be interested to read it.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-20-03 2:38 AM
Dmitry, I too felt you came off better in the exchange and that your tone was far more civil than Mr. Roger's. I also spotted the bogus Russian oil production/price of oil argument and that made me wonder as well. If you're curious, there is also a discussion thread about your e-mail on www.analystforum.com, a forum for CFA candidates and charterholders...
Posted by Number 6 | Link to this comment | 09-20-03 1:40 PM
Magic:
"If possible, you should post a link to that discussion of Dmitry & Rogers's exchange. Readers of this blog might be interested to read it."
Hi,
This is a site of a rather limited special interest, and a close-knit community of investors, but here your are:
http://www.bradynet.com/bbs/em/100040-3583.html
(use "newer comments" navigation for further messages, it is a fairly high-volume board)
Regards, Kirill
Posted by Kirill Pankratov, Ph.D. | Link to this comment | 09-20-03 6:15 PM
Here's the link to the analystforum.com thread:
http://www.analystforum.com/phorums/read.php?f=1&i=47893&t=47893
Posted by Number 6 | Link to this comment | 09-21-03 12:54 AM
It's interesting that one of the writers to this blog expressed her interest in reading JR's book, just to enjoy the display of his incompetence. Indeed any publicity is good and I think that both Mr.Alimov career and Mr.Rogers's book will benefit from this discussion. However if I were invested in Roger's fund I'd hedge my bets by taking some of my money out.
Posted by Misha M | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:52 PM
From my favorite New Yorker magazine
REPLY TO ALL, WITH HISTORY
Issue of 2003-09-29
Posted 2003-09-22
Jim Rogers, the so-called Indiana Jones of finance, is among those businessmen who, though not exactly hard-knocks graduates (Rogers attended Yale and Oxford), feel that the important lessons for achieving success are more apt to be gleaned from, say, a motorcycle ride across Siberia (Rogers holds two Guinness World Records for travelling around the globe) than from any formal schooling, least of all an M.B.A. program. Nonetheless, Rogers, like many moguls, is a happy participant in the B-school lecture circuit, on which C.E.O.s, studio executives, and authors get paid essentially to recount their own achievements, and perhaps to promote their latest projects—in Rogers's case, a new book, "Adventure Capitalist."
It was during one such appearance, at Harvard Business School the other day, that Rogers, wearing his usual bow tie and employing his Alabama drawl, first encountered Dmitry Alimov, and set off a chain of correspondence that future students would do well to examine. It is a case study in making a name for oneself, or making a fool of oneself—depending on your point of view. Dmitry, who is twenty-nine, is a native of Russia and a former employee of Gazprom, the Russian conglomerate. Like Rogers, he is an inveterate international traveller; unlike Rogers, he dresses the part of a post-Soviet European (white jeans, big collars, "Armani-type stuff"), and has chosen to enroll in business school. (He's HBS '04.) Dmitry is also the type of business student who raises his hand a lot, as he did when Rogers hammered on one of his favorite themes—that Russia, though full of adventure, is devoid of real capital ("It's a disaster spiralling downward into a catastrophe"), and unworthy of investment.
Dmitry stood and aired his disagreements. Rogers more or less dismissed them. So that night, Dmitry wrote Rogers an e-mail. "I am the ‘lad' who disputed your factual claims with regard to Russia today," it began. He identified three specific allegations that Rogers had made: people are leaving Russia ("wrong"); Russia's oil production is declining, and oil companies are not reinvesting ("wrong and wrong"); investors are abandoning Russia ("wrong again"). "Many people, including future leaders at Harvard Business School, listen to you," he concluded. "It would be very unfortunate if they were misled by your inaccurate statements. Finally, if nothing else, it is not good for your own public image." He added a postscript: "I took the liberty of sending a copy of this e-mail to my fellow students so that we can set the record straight."
Round two came the following morning, in an e-mail reply from Rogers: "I rarely suffer fools gladly, and even more rarely bother with chauvinistic know-nothings, but since you sent this ludicrous canard . . ." Dmitry was gullible, Rogers said, for believing in data provided by the Russian government and the World Bank, among other things. "If you really believe all this codswallop, why are you in business school?" Rogers wrote. "Why aren't you there making your fortune?" He continued, "I was terribly embarrassed for you when you stood there babbling on in front of the others about the strong ruble . . . , but now you have shouted your hopelessness from the rooftops for all to see." Rogers, not to be outshouted, copied Dmitry's classmates on the response.
Round three, later that night. "I see that you prefer the language of personal insults instead of informed polite discussion," Dmitry, now a minor celebrity on the south bank of the Charles, replied (again to all). This time, he affixed evidence supplied by the U.S. government as well. "Let me know if you desire to see my bank statements and resume. . . . I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, maybe even compare them to yours when you were my tender age, for a real awakening."
Within days, the complete works of Rogers-Alimov, running to a few thousand words, had become one of those e-mails forwarded with great alacrity and mirth among Wall Street firms, British parliamentary committees, and salesmen in Korea. Typical reactions could be broken down into four categories: those from people who have always suspected that business school is a sham ("Jim Rogers kicking some B-school ass"); from the usual array of Harvard-haters; from certain fellow M.B.A. aspirants (to Dmitry: "Keep up the good work, and don't let him get to you. You are representing us well"); and—case students, take note—from employers who have been moved to offer Dmitry a job ("If you would ever consider working for an investment bank . . . ").
Round four has yet to be fought, although by late last week a side skirmish had broken out—copied to everyone, of course—between Rogers and Boris Jurash, an employee in the British Department of Constitutional Affairs (Boris: "I just like winding up smug-heads like yourself." Rogers: "It is clear English is not a language in which you are proficient." Boris: "Don't be a twit, and stop clogging the Net"). Rogers seems to have lost interest in debating Dmitry, meanwhile, as he travels to promote his book. "I don't know why I even bothered to answer that guy in the first place," he said, over the phone. "Whether oil production is up five or six per cent is pretty meaningless in the context of this discussion, which was, and is, that Russia's a hopeless place to invest."
"My take on this is that Rogers can't respond based on facts, because he knows his facts are wrong," Dmitry said. "My best guess is he probably never had the chance to go to business school, and he probably had this feeling of being a little bit inadequate about that."
"Inadequate," in Rogers's view, of course, is a term that might better be applied to Dmitry. "All over the world people are saying, ‘What's wrong with this guy?'" Rogers said. "From the responses I've got, this makes him look like a fool."
Posted by Dmitry Alimov | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 6:30 PM
Read this response to Dmitry/Jim from an equity strategist of a brokerage firm - CCed to Dmitry's classmates.
Dear Dmitry,
I am sure you have been, by now, inundated with e-mails of support after that truly amazing missive from that little twerp Rogers. I can assure you that it is provoking great mirth around Moscow.
The man is arrogant, rude and ignorant to a degree even beyond that to which I have become accustomed after a long career in finance. I have never met him - but from his letter, I imagine him very short, and having great difficulty getting laid. His comically insecure arrogance is reminiscent of the Proust's pathetic Baron de Charlus. Profound insecurity transpires everywhere; he is driven to continually remind us of his brilliance, with the corollary that anyone who disagrees with him is not merely misinformed, but is indeed a total fool, deserving only of his scorn. Common courtesy seems alien to him.
Yes, he can drive a bike; indeed, he has made some money (he repeatedly reminds us of what a genius he is - although perhaps "Fooled by Randomness" would be a rather better reference than "Money Masters of our Time."). What I wonder is whether he has put his money where his mouth is and shorted Russia, beginning in 1999. Perhaps he shorted the bonds - after a 1000% rise even such a genius as he must be getting a bit nervous! Perhaps Yukos, now a $30 bn company after its 3000% percent rise was also on his shorts list.I don't usually suffer from Shadensfreude, but I admit that I almost hope so. Ordinarily, I would not stoop to arguments ad hominem, but Rogers' rudeness goes far beyond anything one ordinarily encounters in discussions amongst supposedly sane people. He affirms his intellectual superiority by screeching "You really should have kept your mouth shut"
- his stylistic genius by starting paragraphs with "Oh my" and "my goodness". and this gentleman claims to be a writer?
Apparently, a successful career in money management has done nothing to shelter his fragile ego. When he tells us that "All the public is extremely aware (sic) of my record of investing in many markets all over the world for many years" (verily, it thinks of nothing else!) and ends his note by inserting a book review from Amazon.com - surely the ante-room to the Noble prize - he goes from the sublime to the grotesque.
His counter-arguments show either an unusual degree of bad faith, extreme ignorance, or some mixture of the two:
1. People are indeed, as you claimed, flowing back to Moscow. Try
booking an inbound ticket on B.A! My mail box is jammed with CV's from investment bankers who are suddenly discovering a "long standing interest in Russia." None of them are from the ex-USSR. We ourselves have recently hired several Russian repats, in one case, winning the person away from a bulge-bracket US investment house. Recent articles on Bloomberg, FT, and WSJ all note that Russia is the flavour of the week in investment banking.this time, for good reason!
2. Rogers here becomes ridiculous. Every single source, BP, IEA,
EIU and the international oil audit agencies all show similar increases in Russian oil production and reserves. Are they all smoking dope? Does this guy know what the entire planet ignores? Presumably, BP did its due diligence before buying TNK. The Western oil majors are fighting each other tooth and nail for stakes in the other Russian oils, I wonder why. His point about why have oil prices not collapsed is equally ridiculous
- perhaps it has something to do with the United States occupation of Iraq proving to be less than a roaring success.perhaps growth in Chinese consumption - up 19% last year - could begin to explain something. Did you ever hear of Venezuela, Mr. Rogers? Accelerating Russian economic growth is, again, obvious for all to see - all, that is, with the intellectual honesty to admit they were wrong. In this context, we all remember the former correspondent of The Economist in Moscow, Edward Lucas; although Ed was certainly no fan of Russia, he did have the good faith to admit that his bearish predictions had simply not been borne out by events. He left as he arrived - a Russia bear, but he showed a fair measure of dignity.
3. Roger's third point has a small grain of truth. The Russian
equity market IS still very narrow. It is not yet use to for capital raising, although it now certainly is used for corp fin purposes, i.e. to buy physical assets. This has not prevented the RTS from being the world's best performing index for the past several years! While the market remains narrow, we are now awaiting the next phase, a wave of IPOs, presumably once domestic interest rates rise above the rate of inflation.
None of this, of course, precludes one's making money. Many of the big hedge funds have been heavily involved, and those I speak with have made out brilliantly! Dividend yields have been increasing while corporate governance IS clearly improving - though from a very low baseline, and not quite as fast as we would have liked.
The Russian debt market is, on the other hand, large, liquid, fast-growing and reasonably transparent. Although markets do occasionally drift a long way from their fundamentals, they invariably correct fairly quickly. Anyone who imagines that the historic crunch in Russian yields over the past 5 years ignores the economic realities (the Rf05 recently traded at a yield of 3.01.that's the RATE, not the
spread!) is either culpably ignorant or simply trying to defend a previous bad call. Again, if Mr. Rogers wishes to short the Russian market, my own firm would be delighted to help!
As we all know, Russia blew a magnificent bubble in 1996-97. History doe not repeat itself - historians repeat themselves.Russian is currently running what is arguably the world's most conservative macroeconomic policy. Reserves are soaring; international debt is being paid down fast, while economic growth is beginning to rival that of China. Huge problems remain.but it is the wilful and arrogant misconceptions of men like Mr. Rogers which makes Russia such an easy place to make money - one simply trades against their ignorance.
Dmitriy, we foreigners are yesterday's news in Russia.the future belongs to the Russians who have gone abroad, learned what was useful in the West, and are now coming home to apply it to the unique Russian context. I sincerely wish you well.
Best wishes,
John Smith (name changed)
Chief Strategist
Brokerage Firm, Moscow
Posted by an observer | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 10:39 PM
My amateur impression has been that the biggest long-term threat to economic development in Russia was the relative absence of the rule of law in corporate dealings, property titles, etc... I would love to hear the opinions of the various informed commentators on this thread.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-23-03 12:41 AM
In reply to Linda T (comment #17)
Thank You for your kind words. We apologize if we come across using "Rogers" language, but you clearly use "Alimov" language. Yes, we did read the emails (our office has been innundated with them) and we have checked the facts, thank you. As co-managers and sub-advisers to several Eastern European Private Equity Funds we know the region well and do our own extensive research. Frankly, we disagree with both of them and our research paints a different picture.
To the point:
We didn't insult Alimov's "questioning" or his "position". Frankly, it is a difference in opinions that make markets. You obviously didn't read carefully the first comment. What we do take issue with, is his approach. There lies the problem. People seem to be taking sides without regard to approriate behavior.
It isn't whether Rogers or Alimov is correct, it is about the little stunt that Alimov has set in motion, and then the continued behaviour. We don't see room for this in the investment world.
In reply to Alimov's posting of New Yorker Piece:
Not sure why you chose to post it. It doesn't paint a complimentary picture of yourself.
Posted by James N | Link to this comment | 09-23-03 8:11 AM
Harbus, on campus student paper at HBS, published the following (I understand Dalai Lama also made an appearance on campus recently).
The Dalai Lama and Jim Rogers E-mail Exchange
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:27 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: The Real Facts About Tibet
Dalai,
I was an unhappy witness to your "talk" on campus today. What a bunch of codswallop!
Before I refute your ludicrous canards, perhaps I should introduce myself: My name is Jim Rogers, and I am a very rich man. I know that Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and I think it is safe to say that I have made more money in my one life than you will make in all of yours combined.
In the past, I have circled the world on a motorcycle, which put me in the Guinness Book of World Records. Maybe you've heard of it. Most recently, I traveled to 116 countries over three years in a souped-up yellow Mercedes with my wife, who happens to be a hot chick.
I also wrote a book about my interest in my adventures.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that my world travels have made me an expert on every major economic, political and social issue of our day. I have also repeatedly drunk unpasteurized camel milk.
Some Wall Street bankers consider me their God, but I was raised a modest Southern boy, so I prefer to think of myself as a God rather than The God.
Given my credentials, I know enough to be embarrassed for you when you say things like "Tibet is a holy place."
I have driven thru Tibet with a hot chick in a yellow Mercedes, and Tibet is no holy place. It is a flea-infested swath of land fit only for yaks and monks. Your one and only hope for economic development is to put ski lifts on the Himalayas.
Please start a company and go public so I can short it.
Sincerely,
Jim Rogers
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:23 PM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: The Real Facts About Tibet
Mr. Rogers,
Thank you for attending my talk at Harvard and for corresponding with me afterward.
Your anger and sarcasm indicate a soul that suffers, and the Buddha teaches us that we must help to reduce human suffering. I will meditate on your situation.
With kindness,
The Dalai Lama
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:25 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: Return of the Ludicrous Canards
Hello Dalai,
What a load of tommyrot! Do I strike you as a guy who needs your meditation? Perhaps you should open up the Guinness Book. Turn to page 123. Look between the world's longest prehensile tail and the guy with the most needles stuck in his ass. Who is that? That's right, it's me.
I'm filthy rich and I have traveled the world and eaten kangaroo meat, possum and silkworms. With a hot chick by my side. Meanwhile, what have you got? A flouncy maroon robe and Richard Gere's phone number. Maybe I should be meditating for you instead.
If you were smart, you'd reincarnate yourself as me 25 years ago and make a gargooglian amount of money like I did. Maybe you could use it to fund the world's largest "Free Tibet" bumper sticker and finally make your way into the Guinness Book.
Keep on chanting,
Jim Rogers
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2003 10:38 AM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: Return of the Ludicrous Canards
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The Buddha teaches us to have compassion for our adversaries. In fact, he teaches us that we should thank them for giving us the opportunity to exercise patience and tolerance. You have been most generous in this regard.
I will continue to reflect on your situation and to meditate on your suffering.
With kindness,
The Dalai Lama
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:27 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: Knock Knock! Who's There? Ludicrous Canard!
Cue ball,
You really should have kept your Tibetan yapper shut, but since you opened it: Your lesson about "showing compassion to one's adversaries" didn't come from Buddha--it came from the Russian government! I didn't think even holy men fell for that Commie shtinkenbooey anymore.
Let's review the facts, shall we?
- Jim Rogers: yellow Mercedes, married to hot chick
- Dalai: sandals, worships fat guy
Short Buddhism,
Jim
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:27 PM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: Knock Knock! Who's There? Ludicrous Canard!
Mr. Rogers,
The Buddha does not ordinarily get involved with day-to-day human affairs, but in this case, he made an exception. He has arranged for you to be reincarnated as a pouchless kangaroo raised for meat. You will also have fleas.
The Buddha would also like to suggest that you undertake your next round-the-world journey in a 1973 monkey-butt-pink Ford Pinto, with a vanity license plate that says, "RAM ME."
With dwindling kindness,
The Dalai Lama
Posted by an observer | Link to this comment | 09-23-03 12:21 PM
Mr.Rogers debate style remind me that of Zhirinovsky.
Also, Mr. Rohers is suspiciously emotional about Russia. My guess is that he either got screwed or didn't get laid there and is bitter about it.
Posted by Ada Ardor | Link to this comment | 09-24-03 2:29 PM
The author of the Dalai Lama comments got to the core of this debate with his witty buddhism 'fable.'
In the grand scheme of things, this story is about patience and decency, and Jim Rogers, despite being rich (so what) and famous (fame is fleeting) is quite a worthless individual. Does money determine whether someone is noble and fair, decent or brilliant? Aren't people supposed to have advanced since the Middle Ages and understood that not money alone deserves respect? What DOES derserve respect is the courage to stand up for one's beliefs and opinions. Have you done it? Do you know what it feels like to have the guts to defend your point of view? If not, I recommend you do it at least once before you turn into dust. Don't worry about the people who will get pissed at you, just do it for yourself.
Posted by Maria | Link to this comment | 09-25-03 8:24 PM
Dear James N and his boyfriends,
You are one to talk about appropriate behavior.
Your original post left me at wonders trying to understand why you think
anyone gives a flying fuck about your stupid opinions, which were not backed any substantive information,
and are completely lacking in any sort of argument.
They were just a list of pompous, holier-than-thou
shit that' was painful to read, and a slew of insults
without any rational reason behind them. It was about
the literary equivalent of masturbation. While
Alimov's original letter was not the style of academic
argument, your's was much, much worse, the equivalent
a 14 year old Freshman ganging up on the different kid.
And that may be giving you too much credit.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-26-03 1:22 AM
I think Jim Rodgers got his ass kicked in Russia when they saw him driving around in a yellow car, which explains his bitterness.
Posted by Sameet Mehta | Link to this comment | 10- 7-03 3:46 AM
Much to do about nothing. Not impressed with Rogers or the punk.
Posted by Phoenix Park | Link to this comment | 10-14-03 7:45 AM
***Much to do about nothing. Not impressed with Rogers or the punk.*** not so fast, Mr... it would be like you say if this would concern Mr Alimov HBS and Ms Vomila SBH... but here people discuss the ugly rebuke of ‘'said to be'' market legend made for simple punk (as you defined Alimov yourself). Assuming Alimov is indeed this punk I would expect him and not Rogers Jimmy to resort to cheap profane language. Of course Alimov should not have started his email by challenging in ultimate way some arguments Rogers made during his speech. Still Rogers, if he would be what some people think he is, should have either skipped replying to Alimov or should have done it in polite but definitive manner to preclude Mr. Alimov from replying back.
PS: it was not the issue whose facts about Russia were correct or plain wrong. The issue was how both investment guru Rogers and punk Alimov failed at large in communicating to each other. whether a punk might be excused, for Rogers there is little excuse in this situation.
Posted by Johny Walker | Link to this comment | 10-21-03 9:02 AM
Did someone notice a comment from JohnD? His comment explains why some people like Jim Rogers feel free about going ballistic and find this their natural way of response. So why? Simply because losers, in our instance like JohnD here, find extreme pleasure to beg to winners like Jim … they not listen to what Rogers say but they are amuzed by a fact of being able to stand close and listen irregardless of what rubbish might pop out of Rogers mouth… so you see how JohnD speaks himself about Jim Rogers here, it feels like he is about to touch Jim butt with his nose. Alimov might indeed should not have responded the way he did beginning with correcting Rogers and copying his classmates… but Alimov actually explained why he did it and this deserves some respect. Otherwise we all must do up to JohnD of silencing yourself no matter what assault or rubbish happens, but this is a way of true loser which probably JohnD is himself.
Posted by Hot Chick | Link to this comment | 10-22-03 4:14 AM
uh...maybe I was wrong! Events over the weekend put a new spin on this one
Posted by Phoenix Park | Link to this comment | 10-27-03 3:17 PM
RUSSIA - FOREVER!
DIMA - RESPECT!
ВРАГИ - СОСАТЬ!
Posted by Evgeniy, Russia | Link to this comment | 11- 9-03 12:03 PM
I just read the whole discussion on analystforum (?) and I really fail to understand why people there make such a big deal out of Dmitry CC'ing his class-mates.. As he himself said:
"In the interest of full disclosure, Rogers came to HBS class and made several insulting comments about Russia and Russian people in front of 100 of my classmates backed up by "facts" that had nothing to do with reality."
In Dmitry's eyes, the guy insulted the students' intelligence by providing inaccurate 'facts' and overall bad-mouthed his land of origin AND his people. Since Rogers refuses to argue during his lecture, Dmitry absolutely rightfully takes the discussion offline not forgetting all the people present at the original lecture by CC'ing them.. Whats wrong? Totally reasonable approach if you ask me..
Also, i find Rogers' unintelligible ramblings about forced immigration of population of Soviet republics INTO Russia during soviet years completely laughable, i think he meant it to be the other way around, at least the european portion anyways.
And i don't really understand how anyone can deny the fact that these days people are immigrating into Russia at higher rates than they leave? I think he meant jewish population fleeing Soviet Union during the repressions and all that crap some 40-20 years ago...
my 2 cents
Posted by gene | Link to this comment | 11- 9-03 4:39 PM
This posting was published in Harvard student newspaper. I suspect, it's just joke, but who knows? Enjoy!
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:27 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: The Real Facts About Tibet
Dalai,
I was an unhappy witness to your "talk" on campus today. What a bunch of codswallop!
Before I refute your ludicrous canards, perhaps I should introduce myself: My name is Jim Rogers, and I am a very rich man. I know that Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and I think it is safe to say that I have made more money in my one life than you will make in all of yours combined.
In the past, I have circled the world on a motorcycle, which put me in the Guinness Book of World Records. Maybe you've heard of it. Most recently, I traveled to 116 countries over three years in a souped-up yellow Mercedes with my wife, who happens to be a hot chick.
I also wrote a book about my interest in my adventures.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that my world travels have made me an expert on every major economic, political and social issue of our day. I have also repeatedly drunk unpasteurized camel milk.
Some Wall Street bankers consider me their God, but I was raised a modest Southern boy, so I prefer to think of myself as a God rather than The God.
Given my credentials, I know enough to be embarrassed for you when you say things like "Tibet is a holy place."
I have driven thru Tibet with a hot chick in a yellow Mercedes, and Tibet is no holy place. It is a flea-infested swath of land fit only for yaks and monks. Your one and only hope for economic development is to put ski lifts on the Himalayas.
Please start a company and go public so I can short it.
Sincerely,
Jim Rogers
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:23 PM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: The Real Facts About Tibet
Mr. Rogers,
Thank you for attending my talk at Harvard and for corresponding with me afterward.
Your anger and sarcasm indicate a soul that suffers, and the Buddha teaches us that we must help to reduce human suffering. I will meditate on your situation.
With kindness,
The Dalai Lama
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:25 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: Return of the Ludicrous Canards
Hello Dalai,
What a load of tommyrot! Do I strike you as a guy who needs your meditation? Perhaps you should open up the Guinness Book. Turn to page 123. Look between the world's longest prehensile tail and the guy with the most needles stuck in his ass. Who is that? That's right, it's me.
I'm filthy rich and I have traveled the world and eaten kangaroo meat, possum and silkworms. With a hot chick by my side. Meanwhile, what have you got? A flouncy maroon robe and Richard Gere's phone number. Maybe I should be meditating for you instead.
If you were smart, you'd reincarnate yourself as me 25 years ago and make a gargooglian amount of money like I did. Maybe you could use it to fund the world's largest "Free Tibet" bumper sticker and finally make your way into the Guinness Book.
Keep on chanting,
Jim Rogers
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2003 10:38 AM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: Return of the Ludicrous Canards
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The Buddha teaches us to have compassion for our adversaries. In fact, he teaches us that we should thank them for giving us the opportunity to exercise patience and tolerance. You have been most generous in this regard.
I will continue to reflect on your situation and to meditate on your suffering.
With kindness,
The Dalai Lama
--Original Message--
From: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:27 PM
To: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Subject: Knock Knock! Who's There? Ludicrous Canard!
Cue ball,
You really should have kept your Tibetan yapper shut, but since you opened it: Your lesson about "showing compassion to one's adversaries" didn't come from Buddha--it came from the Russian government! I didn't think even holy men fell for that Commie shtinkenbooey anymore.
Let's review the facts, shall we?
- Jim Rogers: yellow Mercedes, married to hot chick
- Dalai: sandals, worships fat guy
Short Buddhism,
Jim
--Original Message--
From: The Dalai Lama [mailto:hisholiness@buddha.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:27 PM
To: Jim Rogers [jimrogers@jimrogers.com]
Subject: Re: Knock Knock! Who's There? Ludicrous Canard!
Mr. Rogers,
The Buddha does not ordinarily get involved with day-to-day human affairs, but in this case, he made an exception. He has arranged for you to be reincarnated as a pouchless kangaroo raised for meat. You will also have fleas.
The Buddha would also like to suggest that you undertake your next round-the-world journey in a 1973 monkey-butt-pink Ford Pinto, with a vanity license plate that says, "RAM ME."
With dwindling kindness,
The Dalai Lama
Posted by Evgeniy Frolov | Link to this comment | 11-10-03 1:47 AM
Говорят, что в России две беды - дураки и дороги. После того как Роджерс уехал из России беда осталась одна.
Posted by Tuauk | Link to this comment | 11-10-03 2:32 AM
Dmitry,
Russian students in Ottawa show deep respect to you. what the hell Jim Rogers knows about Russia? Not very much. If you may be notice he did argue even not with you but with common sense in whole. He did everything to persuade us how he hates Russia. And i'm realy glad to find out that in Harvard there is at least one russian guy who loves OUR country and i hope, will do his best (as well as myself) to make OUR nation many times more rich and prosperous.
Best regards,
Yury
Posted by Yury | Link to this comment | 11-11-03 12:37 AM
Ain't no disgrace to be poor - but might as well be.
Posted by Lachman Dave | Link to this comment | 11-25-03 3:16 PM
what the fuck is it all about? Who is Jim Rogers?
Posted by sigus | Link to this comment | 03-16-04 11:35 PM
Who is this Jim Rogers? If he has really made money as he claims, then how did he? Was he a mafia goon or someone? Or sucked Soros\\\' balls?
Posted by Alec | Link to this comment | 09-21-04 6:19 AM
It may not be correct to comment in such a one-sided manner without Mr. Rogers not being a party to it. True that his tone smacked of arrogance, but if Dmitry was emotional about his country, Mr. Rogers was emotional about his knowledge and the skills with which he has made money and is succesful.
These are not equal grounds.
By the way, just wondering if somebody cared to check the source of the reply which is supposed to have come from rogers, my take is a person cannot be that arrogant, is it all stage-managed?
Posted by Kamal | Link to this comment | 09-21-04 7:34 AM
oops...
meant...without Mr. Rogers being a party to the discussion.....
Posted by Kamal | Link to this comment | 09-21-04 7:46 AM
In B-school circles, a great deal of energy goes into assuring that name-brand guest speakers are treaded with a certain degree of reverence, regardless of whether or not they've had anything enlightening to say. I can only imagine that Mr. Alimov got some combination of "Attaboy!" and "I can't beleive you did that, you a**hole!" from his classmates.
The ensuing email exchange says a great deal about both participants, and I think Mr. Rogers comes off worse only because he has more to lose reputationally.
And, on the whole, Mr. Alimov may very well have benefitted from the exchange, as he has gotten a fair degree of publicity among people in the financial community who may be predisposed to his brand of faux-polite aggression.
Posted by LarryB | Link to this comment | 09-21-04 12:26 PM
it's pretty clear that rogers' comments would be more well received by the financial community. there is absolutely nothing redeemable about Dmitry Alimov's comments. the resentment towards business school goes a long way. we had a real laugh at dmitry's expense at morgan stanley.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 06- 4-05 2:38 AM
I think that considering the events that have recently played out in Russia from the time this email exchange occurred have gone to show that Rogers' was right to be suspicious of investment in russia. I'm sure investors in Yukos would agree.
To add to that point, I don't think Rogers was wrong in his facts as many have stated on this board. Neither side to this debate ever stated a time period in which they were referring to in which growth or lack there of occurred. In Mr. Rogers case it seems that he took a longer term view of the situation (which is consistent to his investment style in general from my understanding), AND due to the fact that there are still alot of suspect individuals running the adminstration his skepticism in recent growth was/is warrented.
Further, it is odd that people on this thread are bashing Rogers so frequently. I'll agree his response was quite arrogant but to challenge his ability as an investor is quite a bold statement. A track record like his is evidence enough for me to prove that he is a very talented investor. Just research his track record as head analyst with George Soros, or his new managed futures fund.
Posted by Matt | Link to this comment | 07-16-05 4:22 PM
I am traveling to Russia on vacation 2 weeks from now, and looking forward immensely to meeting Dima Alimov in person and shaking his had over a drink or two!
Posted by Ken Martinnnnnnnnnnnnn | Link to this comment | 08- 5-05 8:11 AM
Cool site
Posted by laski erotyka | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:48 PM
cooooool site :)
Posted by ogloszenia towarzyskie | Link to this comment | 12-18-05 12:42 PM
thirty years younger! His mouth dropped open and his eyes widened as he play roulette Dont try to hand your cash to the dealer For security reasons,.
Posted by Wilson Dimitri | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:15 PM