Good lord. Marks says they couldn’t source the Fidelity report and it is “probably apocryphal” (that is, BS). “But I still like the idea, since the conclusion is so much in line with my thinking.”
Is that we consider good argument. Finding a dated newsletter citing a non-existent report with a conclusion which agrees with our thinking?
It’s funny, but I lost some respect for Marks for repeating something he knows is probably not true.