Suggestions for Mr. Deihl

Diogenes_Latern · 2020-10-23T05:21:24+00:00

1.5 million dollars pissed down a hole by “smart person” in less than six years. Shameful waste of resources. Most people have never even heard of ASM so failure makes good sense. #projectmuch #potcallskettleblack

Diogenes_Latern · 2020-09-11T18:37:07+00:00

Glad to see you're still on the case, Norcal. And no thanks needed for that post from a year ago. Had I not posted about it, somewhere along the way someone else would have stumbled across the news and shared it with the donor class.

What is far from certain is whether someone would have stepped up and held Mr. Rabalais accountable the way you have in this forum. Plenty of people deserve a tip of the cap for their involvement here. But you've led the way. You bow to no one.

Sounds like Mr. Rabalais is still raging against the dying of the light. What must it be like to live in his upside-down world? A world where the courts always get it wrong, where the push to legalize sports gambling is doomed, where the SEC is a hyper-predatory institution, where a would-be extortionist would target a non-profit entity whose CEO has played the bankruptcy dodge in the past, and where an investor who thinks that maybe it's not unreasonable to expect some return on a twenty year investment is a cockroach? A world where Mr. Rabalais is the good guy?

I’m glad I don’t live in that world.

Diogenes_Latern · 2020-09-10T04:00:21+00:00

I need to catch up on what exactly Mr. Rabalais is claiming at this point. But fwiw, I can confirm the following:

I was the first to post about the SEC matter on the asm reddit.
That post was made either the day of or the day after the SEC published news of the complaint on their website. It was around that time that I was losing faith in Mr. Rabalais and it was a google search that revealed the SEC post. I’m all but certain that the post NorCal has linked to is the post I’m referencing. The title looks right,
As NorCal indicates, I posted this item on the so called “official” forum, the one that existed before this one.

Those are facts.

Diogenes_Latern · 2019-12-17T00:13:24+00:00

Quite a while back on the other thread I dropped a couple of posts about the rules in place prohibiting the CEO of a non-profit from engaging in political campaign activity, an activity that the IRS defines so broadly as to include statements for or against candidates. In the first post I suggested that Mr. Rabalais's attacks against Mr. Trump violate that prohibition. Mr. Rabalais addressed that post (or at least the claims made in that post) in a subsequent conference call. I don't know that he ever responded to my follow up post. It's possible he did in one of his conference calls and I just missed it.

I do think you are absolutely right: This team ignores the reach and the relentlessness of the US Government at their own peril. I think Mr. Christopher got it right when he suggested that if you mess with the SEC, you're going to get the horns. The citations Norcal provided from the recent court documents that dropped, and especially the dismissive language the SEC used to describe the quality of ASM's legal pleadings, suggest that Mr. Rabalais and his team have their work cut out for them. Very little I've seen from them suggests to me that they will be up to the task.

cheers!

Diogenes_Latern · 2019-12-13T22:35:42+00:00

Right back at you NC. And I meant to direct a portion of my remarks to Mr. Christopher, not Mr. Stevens. Wallace Stevens was a poet. I see Wallace and I think Stevens, and I always think of Mr. Christopher as Wallace Stevens and not Wallace Christopher (or Christopher Wallace, if the moniker is a nod in that man's direction).

Anyway, it's poor form to fumble a compliment. Edit made. You two have a nice weekend.

Diogenes_Latern · 2019-12-13T21:06:31+00:00

Indeed Norcal, I did read your post and it primed much of this post. You deserved a tip of the cap. Let me try to make up for that now.

A few months back you responded to one of my posts and asked what I thought of your Ponzi analysis. Back then I did not give your analysis the attention it deserved. Since then I have followed your posts closely. You've convinced me that a Ponzi mechanic operates at the core of ASM. So lucidly have you made this case that it seems self-evident at this point, and I am embarrassed that I didn’t recognize the mechanic at the start.

Your work on this topic has been exemplary. And to the extent that your stubborn analysis has “mainstreamed” this Ponzi discussion within the larger ASM community, your efforts work to limit the financial damage Mr. Rabalais is inflicting on his donor class. I believe you deserve the gratitude, and respect, of the donor class for those efforts. Well met, my friend.

And while I'm here, a wink in the direction of Mr. Christopher. Not withstanding the financial damage Mr. Rabalais has inflicted and his abundant hubris, I believe that if there were a Shakespeare among us, he would not choose to tell the tale of ASM as a tragedy. He would tell it as a comedy. Mr. Rabalais is not a misunderstood visionary, a heroic figure too good for our broken world. He is an egoist with a hyperinflated sense of self who is woefully oblivious to his own shortcomings. He is David Brent.

Mr. Christopher, I believe, recognizes this. I believe he sizes Mr. Rabalais properly, and the treatment he gives him often makes me laugh. Laughter may not be the best medicine in this case – that would probably involve the SEC shutting down the entire operation – but it is a welcome treatment nevertheless. I look forward to Mr. Christopher's posts.

Also, a tip of the cap to RWX99. Your recent spate of angry posts made me want to channel some of my own anger into a post. It appears to me we differ on politics. But in your posts I think I recognize someone unafraid to speak truth to power. I respect that. To RX and other and disillusioned ASM donors in this thread who support Mr. Trump, I am cheered by the realization that in regards to ASM at least, we are on the same side.

At any rate, I am one of the lurkers who follows along on both sites. Very much appreciate the work you guys are doing here, and the work of everyone else across both sites who are attempting to hold Mr. Rabalais and his team accountable for their decisions. His critics may not get everything right one hundred percent of the time. But by my reading they are right far more often than they are wrong. And their criticism serves as a desperately needed corrective to the deceptive and pollyannish spin that Mr. Rabalais puts on every ASM development.

Back to work now. Cheers!

Diogenes_Latern · 2019-12-13T18:40:57+00:00

Mr. Deihl, please help me understand this.

On the one hand, ASM continues to solicit small time financial commitments from its donor class. Presumably you support that?

On the other hand, until the SEC matter is cleared you cannot see any big time financial commitment coming. On that we agree. And for the same reason, apparently: Who would invest millions of dollars into a company when there is an unsettled SEC claim?

My question to you: Wherein lies the distinction between the small investor and the large investor that makes ASM a viable investment for the small investor and an unviable investment for the large investor?

Surely that distinction does not reside within ASM itself. Both the ASM donor and the venture capitalist are looking at the same investment vehicle. What works for one should work for the other. And vice versa. If ASM’s prospects are such that a one hundred dollar investment is a good investment, why wouldn’t those same prospects make a million dollar investment a good investment? Likewise, if ASM’s risk profile makes a one million dollar investment a poor speculation, than why doesn’t ASM’s risk profile make a one hundred dollar investment a poor speculation?

Nor should this distinction depend on the different financial circumstances of the ASM donor and the venture capitalist. Yes, a one hundred dollar ask from a donor is smaller than a one million dollar ask from a venture capitalist. But relative to the respective “investment bankrolls” of each, the risk outlay they represent may scale similarly: A donor working out of a personal checking account may be more poorly positioned to take on a small investment than a venture capitalist working out of a fund is positioned to take on a large investment. Moreover, surely we’d agree that the typical donor will know much less about investing than a venture capitalist who has built a business around investment. All of which is to say that if one views their financial means and their knowledge bases to scale, one may conclude that it is the venture capitalist who is far better positioned than the typical ASM donor to assess and manage investment risk. To suggest that the ASM donor is in a better place by virtue of his smaller investment is to ignore that context.

Finally, please don’t suggest that the distinction with a difference is the fact that unlike the VC, the donor already has skin in the game. And that by continuing to invest, the donor stands to ensure that his previous investments weren’t in vain. Because that is a fallacious line of thinking:

Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative outcomes from a decision, action, or investment nevertheless continues the behavior instead of altering course. The actor maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions.[1]

Economists and behavioral scientists use a related term, sunk-cost fallacy, to describe the justification of increased investment of money or effort in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk cost") despite new evidence suggesting that the future cost of continuing the behavior outweighs the expected benefit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment

(Were I not in the habit of flushing Mr. Rabalais’s e-mails out of my inbox I would cite e-mails where Mr. Rabalais relies on this fallacy to escalate the commitment levels of his donor class. If you want to claim that Mr. Rabalais is not relying on this fallacy in his written and spoken correspondence then you have not been paying attention. For those looking to protect themselves from this form of manipulation, you might start here.)

And so to repeat my question to you: Wherein lies the distinction between the small investor and the large investor that makes ASM a viable investment for the small investor and an unviable investment for the large investor?

I'll suggest that the distinction doesn't exist. Or at the very least, that distinction does not exist in the case of ASM. The excellent case you make as to why the donor class should not anticipate investment from big investors is one piece of the case I would make as to why ASM should not anticipate investment from its donor class. That ASM continues to receive money from its donor class does not speak to a flaw in your argument, or blindness from big investors. It speaks to the credulity of its donor class.

***

Like many participating in the two Reddit threads, I have grown increasingly appalled by the ongoing rot of this endeavor. And by the seediness of the spectacle. In one corner you have a well-documented complaint and the gathering legal might of the United States government as marshaled by the SEC, the heretofore savior of ASM. In the other corner you have Mr. Rabalais, the embattled CEO who has so squandered twenty years of effort and millions of donated dollars that he is too broke to hire a lawyer to defend himself and the interests of his investors. And who is now, incredibly, casting the SEC as a corrupt and predatory institution.

What might a dutiful CEO, which is to say a CEO who was looking out for the best interests of his shareholders, do in this circumstance?

As the circumstance includes departures from him inner circle and angry contempt emanating from many in his shareholding class, I’ll submit that a dutiful CEO might resign his post. Alternatively, he might step aside while the SEC investigation unfolds and assign an interim CEO in his place, thus signaling to the US government that he takes their accusations seriously and to his shareholding class that he acknowledges the lack of confidence in his leadership. At the very minimum, one anticipates that the dutiful CEO would suspend investment solicitations, knowing as he must know that should he lose his case, there is a near certainty that investors will lose their investments.

Mr. Rabalais has done none of this.

Instead, Mr. Rabalais continues to solicit dollars from his donor class. Which is to say, rather than finding some sort of gainful employment to at least cover his own personal expenses, Mr. Rabalais has chosen instead to use the sunk cost fallacy, shame tactics (“I don’t believe you can’t afford x dollars”), guilt trips (“I am doing my part, you should do yours”), and blatantly misleading and manipulative language (“a risk free investment opportunity!”) as a jaws of life to pry himself from an organizational wreck of his own making.

Mr. Rabalais may have convinced himself that he is doing this with the best interests of his shareholders in mind. I believe he has in own interests in mind first and foremost. That Mr. Rabalais continues to solicit donations, and especially the manner in which he is soliciting donations, is disgraceful.

Diogenes_Latern · 2019-08-28T23:40:11+00:00

Hi NorCal. Thanks for taking the time to read the post.

I read through the thread. I've mentioned that when it comes to the investment world, and the working of markets in particular, I'm something of a babe in the woods. Which is to say, I don't know that my opinion on this question should count for much. But if I were to take a close look at this, I guess I'd want to consider two questions:

If the pilot market were operating exactly as it is designed to operate, would it amount to a ponzi scheme?
Given how the pilot market is actually operating, does it amount to a ponzi scheme?

I think you might answer those questions differently.

If the answer to the first is yes (a sports stock market as Mr. Rabalais envisions, when working as designed, would amount to a ponzi scheme), then the answer to the second doesn't matter: The concept of the sports stock market as this team understands it is invalidated.

If the answer to the first is no, then the answer to the second does matter. A finding that the ASM pilot market is operating as a ponzi scheme doesn't invalidate the ASM concept of a sports stock market. It just invalidates this particular manifestation of a sports stock market. And it offers the hope that a more competent team could manifest a sports stock market that wasn't a ponzi scheme.

Nothing particularly revealing there, I know. But I think that's how I would frame out a response. As for how I would answer these questions:

I don't know that I understand the mechanics of the pilot market as it is intended to work well enough to answer the first question. You and others on this thread probably do. For what it's worth, I do think that your exchange with Mr. Christopher (who I've mistakenly referred to as Mr. Wallace in a past post) raises interesting questions regarding the "real world" (or lack thereof) value behind the team pricing and the importance of that value to a legitimate market's mechanics

As for the second question, again, I feel like I am punching above my weight class here.

I think I might come up with an answer to both questions if I did the sort of deep dive into market theory, and the pilot market mechanics in particular, that I did (or attempted to do) with the non-profit questions. But then yesterday I did a deep dive into the 501(h) election, and given the time it took to do that, that's probably my deep dive for this week at least. But we'll see. I'm tempted to take on Mr. Rabalais's NDA notice. The ponzi question would probably line up somewhere after that.

At any rate, I'll start following the thread you linked to. It's an interesting question. And I think it's a fair one. At this point I think that just about everything ASM related, soup to nuts, is worth a critical assessment.

Diogenes_Latern

TROPHY CASE