Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Tibble v. Edison 401(k) Fee-Case Decision Offers 3 Lessons
People might think, isn't this old news? Wasn't this already decided by the Supreme Court in 2015?
I was contemplating linking to articles on the actual rulings since that SC ruling. (The article linked to above is a commentary on the most recent subsequent court ruling.)
But then I thought, Ted must have done that already. A week ago (for this lower court ruling), last December (for the full 9th Circuit ruling that sent it all the way back down to the trial court, and even April 2016 (for 9th Circuit ruling against employees recovering losses).
Rather than be the object of scorn, I'll just ask what those links were. Then I can make sure not to repost them. The only ones I know about pertain to the SC ruling I mentioned in my opening sentence.
@msf- There is no disputing that Ted works hard to provide links to information that he believes to be pertinent or interesting, and that his efforts are appreciated by many here on MFO.
However, by sheer weight of mouthpower and ill-tempered badgering he has managed to contrive the impression that there is some sort of MFO rule or agreement that once someone provides a particular link, it is somehow forbidden for anyone else to utilize that same link.
In a really perverse application of attempted censorship, he decrees that once he has utilized a common information resource, it is then off-limits for anyone else to do the same. If anyone dare transgress Ted's self-proclaimed "rule", they become, as you note, "an object of scorn".
Your grudging deference to his "ownership" of information is unfortunate, as it reenforces Ted's manipulation, and undermines the right of any poster to provide linkage in whatever context the poster may desire.
@Old_Joe while I appreciate Ted's links, he does not have a monopoly on them.
Ted is quick to point out when others have repeated his links, but he hasn't responded to my request for existing links to help avoid such repetition. It could be that despite having posting multiple times about Tibble v. Edison, Ted missed posting links for more than two years. (Pionline.com published many updates on the case in this time frame.) Or perhaps it's not so easy to find links on MFO that he or anyone else has posted.
The former says that we shouldn't assume everything's been posted about a subject, or even anything at all. The latter says that it's unreasonable to expect us to find all the links even if they have been posted.
The Chuck Jaffe post (second link I gave, above), states that it is a follow up. Follow up to what, who knows? It contains no link to another post, not even a clue other than to say some older post exists. It took me a fair amount of effort to locate that earlier post.
In contrast, there was no note (prior to mine) in this thread that it too is a follow up to earlier posts. No hint at all. Just lucky that I remembered an earlier post.
Now I (and many others here, I assume) appreciate Ted's "virtual digest" of articles of the day. But it's not especially conducive to reducing duplication.
It's always possible that I fail to remember other posts on a subject, either because of a faulty memory or because the other posts were not memorable. No big deal. I can eat more fish and unmemorable posts can be made more enticing.
Comments
I was contemplating linking to articles on the actual rulings since that SC ruling. (The article linked to above is a commentary on the most recent subsequent court ruling.)
But then I thought, Ted must have done that already. A week ago (for this lower court ruling), last December (for the full 9th Circuit ruling that sent it all the way back down to the trial court, and even April 2016 (for 9th Circuit ruling against employees recovering losses).
Rather than be the object of scorn, I'll just ask what those links were. Then I can make sure not to repost them. The only ones I know about pertain to the SC ruling I mentioned in my opening sentence.
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/21152/does-your-401-k-use-high-cost-funds
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/21282/chuck-jaffe-what-the-supreme-court-s-fixes-for-retirement-savings-may-do-to-your-401-k
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/16315/the-supreme-court-and-the-evil-or-stupid-fiduciary
(jerry's original link in 2014 while the case was on the way up to the SC)
However, by sheer weight of mouthpower and ill-tempered badgering he has managed to contrive the impression that there is some sort of MFO rule or agreement that once someone provides a particular link, it is somehow forbidden for anyone else to utilize that same link.
In a really perverse application of attempted censorship, he decrees that once he has utilized a common information resource, it is then off-limits for anyone else to do the same. If anyone dare transgress Ted's self-proclaimed "rule", they become, as you note, "an object of scorn".
Your grudging deference to his "ownership" of information is unfortunate, as it reenforces Ted's manipulation, and undermines the right of any poster to provide linkage in whatever context the poster may desire.
Respectfully-
OJ
Regards,
Ted
Ted is quick to point out when others have repeated his links, but he hasn't responded to my request for existing links to help avoid such repetition. It could be that despite having posting multiple times about Tibble v. Edison, Ted missed posting links for more than two years. (Pionline.com published many updates on the case in this time frame.) Or perhaps it's not so easy to find links on MFO that he or anyone else has posted.
The former says that we shouldn't assume everything's been posted about a subject, or even anything at all. The latter says that it's unreasonable to expect us to find all the links even if they have been posted.
The Chuck Jaffe post (second link I gave, above), states that it is a follow up. Follow up to what, who knows? It contains no link to another post, not even a clue other than to say some older post exists. It took me a fair amount of effort to locate that earlier post.
In contrast, there was no note (prior to mine) in this thread that it too is a follow up to earlier posts. No hint at all. Just lucky that I remembered an earlier post.
Now I (and many others here, I assume) appreciate Ted's "virtual digest" of articles of the day. But it's not especially conducive to reducing duplication.
It's always possible that I fail to remember other posts on a subject, either because of a faulty memory or because the other posts were not memorable. No big deal. I can eat more fish