bump
Actual Fraud at JAR
-
Technically, some of the tax returns (if the data exists - still not clear PL didn't just straight fabricate it) in LM could be "parents". These would be firms that are UNCONSOLIDATED - i.e., those that have no common owners AND no subs. They wouldn't be parents technically, but have having no common controlling owners, they would be what LM pretend to study
At best LM lie about the data. They DO NOT have consolidated parent level tax returns. At worse, it's totally made up
-
Agree!
What’s the point of trolling in this thread? If you think there’s fraud, do a paper that addresses it and sign your name. Circulate on SSRN and/or submit to some journal that would consider it seriously. Whining here and ad hominem attacks won’t change anything.
-
What’s the point of trolling in this thread? If you think there’s fraud, do a paper that addresses it and sign your name. Circulate on SSRN and/or submit to some journal that would consider it seriously. Whining here and ad hominem attacks won’t change anything.
Do you believe there is fraud involved here
-
Econ journal watch should allow anonymous submissions
What’s the point of trolling in this thread? If you think there’s fraud, do a paper that addresses it and sign your name. Circulate on SSRN and/or submit to some journal that would consider it seriously. Whining here and ad hominem attacks won’t change anything.
-
Agreed!
Econ journal watch should allow anonymous submissions
What’s the point of trolling in this thread? If you think there’s fraud, do a paper that addresses it and sign your name. Circulate on SSRN and/or submit to some journal that would consider it seriously. Whining here and ad hominem attacks won’t change anything.
-
It's clear that there is indisputable fraud. What was JARs reaction? What benefit is there to writing a paper and posting it?
Blacklisting by the fraudsters with power. Recall Hunton at Bentley had no power. Nothing happened to Libby or others who allegedly knew that data couldn't exist
If JAR was a legitimate journal, or Chicago a legitimate institution, they would have resolved it already. Do you dispute that there is not obvious fraud? If so, what is the basis of your dispute?
-
^ not only blacklisting of the whistleblower, but of all connected people. Recall AY works almost always solo. It is beyond &(&(^(^$%% up that the person telling the truth and their PhD students/colleagues/school/whatever would suffer due to the fraudsters in power
-
taking a step back: had LM not lied about the data, would the paper be published?
Would a meaningless study of subsidiary reporting choices - which are non-existent because the parent makes the choices - and how they correlate with subsidiary assets - which are meaningless because of interco transactions and arbitrary allocations by the parent - be published?
No! Even with the Chicago connection. Thus, the paper must be retracted at a minimum. Can anyone dispute that retraction is necessary, based on JARs own letter? No! Did JAR retract? No! Frauds everywhere