|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Masters Cowan & Stewart
or
Masters Stewart & Cowan,
I once talked to Baumring on the telephone. I knew his partner,
Don Mack. Don called me and said that I must talk to his buddy who is the
greatest expert on Gann in the world. Baumring picked up the phone, I
inquired, "so Don says you are the world's greatest Gann expert, is that
right?" Baumring responded yes. I asked, wasn't Gann an Astrologer?
Baumring says yes. I replied, "ok, can you tell me the ruler of
Capricorn?" Silence on the phone. "Ok, how about Cancer?" No reply. To
make a longer story short, Baumring flunked my simple little Astro quiz. I
wasn't impressed. How about you guys?
Prologue: Originally, Don Mack was the guy who started the Investment
Centre bookstore, where
you probably met Baumring. At his peak, Don was the largest dealer in used
and rare market related books in the USA. Don took Baumring in as a
partner. Don's previous partner, Kent Stefgan, had
been both a marketing genius and a con artist in that he helped Don organize
the originally excellent
Gann 12 seminars, of which I was one of the speakers. The year was 1980.
Kent promised the speakers they would share in 25% of the "gate". The first
of this traveling show, was done in L.A. at which I was one of the speakers.
The seminar was a big success with about 110 attendees at $600 each. So,
when it was time to get paid for this, Kent reneged on most of what he had
promised. I was lucky to get enough to cover my travel expenses. This was
really dumb, because 1) the seminar was on its way to being a big success so
it's stupid to kill the golden goose. 2) I had helped to secure some of the
speakers, so several were based in Chicago and or were my friends, and the
next stop on this was Chicago where I lived then. They were coming to my
home turf. So, most of the speakers boycotted the rest of the tour because
Kent couldn't remember what he had promised us. About six month later, I
hear that Kent had skipped and Don Mack was out of most of the money from
the Gann 12 Seminars, which he had bankrolled, rumored to be well over
$100,000. What does this have to do with Baumring? Because, as nice a guy as
Don Mack is, he tended to pick partners of questionable character. .
Now, fast forward several years.. Baumring is Don Mack's partner.
Don decides to go on an extended trip for several months. This was not
uncommon, because he would travel around and look for
market books. When Don returned, most of the books and the money for these
books was gone.. Don was wiped out on Baumring's watch. Given some of Dr.
B's other habits, I guess it is not surprising. But, I do think all of this
puts a hole into turning Baumring into some legendary Gann guru.
There are lots of people who think they are doing the "Gann thing". But,
they delude themselves by refusing to acknowledge or study Astrology. Tell
me if I am wrong, but I think Baumring was one of those people. He may have
been a great student of various philosophies and market writers, but he
didn't know the basic principles of Astrology and hence he didn't know Gann.
Now please correct me if I am wrong, but I have gotten the
impression that Masters Stewart & Cowan pride themselves as Gann experts?
Given the premise that Gann was an Astrologer, and well versed at that, I
wonder if either of them can correctly list the planetary rulerships of the
various Zodiacal signs without looking them up or asking anyone?
Curiously,
Norman Winski
P.S. I have a few more Baumring stories, but will save them for another
episode. <G> Ok, here is a teaser for the Baumring experts. "Oh, you want to
buy "Egg of Columbus" by George Bayer? Uhh, that'll be $25,000" That
Baumring was always good for a laugh. <G>
Andre Franklin wrote:
> The following is more in the continuing discussion between Brad Stewart
> and Bradley Cowan. For those that have missed this ongoing discussion,
> it began on Dec 13, 1999 when I asked forum readers for comments
> regarding Cowan's books on trading and market theory. Since then, both
> Cowan and Stewart were "drawn" into these forum discussions on a variety
> of issues too numerous to mention here.
>
> The following post from Stewart is somewhat lengthy...those not
> interested in this discussion should stop reading here. Also, sometimes
> lengthy posts are cut-off before the end of the post. If this happens, I
> will repost the missing portion immediately after I learn of it. (No
> need to send a post to tell me!)
>
> Finally, I'd like to thank both Cowan and Stewart for sharing their
> thoughts with us. Regardless of what position you take...if any...this
> has been an interesting exchange of words to say the least. I will
> continue to post on behalf of both Cowan and Stewart as long as either
> has anything significant to say (Or...forum readers tell me they've had
> enough!).
>
> Good trading,
>
> Andre Franklin
> WickedTrader, LLC.
> http://www.wickedtrader.com/
>
> (This post ends with the words "Brad Stewart").
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Dear Andre,
>
> I apologize for my delay in response, I have been away for several days.
> It seems to me that there are several separate questions being confused
> here, and I will do my best to clear all of them up. Feel free to post
> these comments wherever there is interest in these questions.
>
> My initial comments regarding this subject were made in response to
> Cowan's
> original statement that, "The vast majority of my material can be
> categorized into 2 areas: (1) Price-Time Vector work and (2) Planetary
> cycles. Baumring never mentioned either in the seminars I attended. I
> even
> asked Brad Stewart, who was around him constantly, if he ever heard
> Baumring
> mention my price-time vectors (by any name). After carefully researching
> his
> notes he reluctantly had to agree that he never used that technique."
> Actually, I searched my notes and provided Cowan with a several
> paragraphs
> of examples of the basis and use of the Pythagorean Theorem for
> calculating
> vectors from only my first 25 pages of seminar notes, which I posted
> earlier. Cowan chose to select my statement that Baumring never
> presented
> this material in his step by step manner, which was the introduction to
> my
> opinion that the basis of this PTV material was thoroughly presented by
> Baumring in several formats.
>
> Cowan's above statement is very misleading since Baumring continually
> discussed price-time vectors, and his entire teaching is based upon
> Planetary Cycles. My letter to Cowan states that Baumring didn't
> present as
> outlined in Cowan's question the exact method delineated below, and call
> it
> PTV's or Price Time Vectors, but presented the entire conceptual basis
> for
> this application and others, in numerous ways with many examples leaving
> them for the students to further apply themselves. The selections taken
> from the Baumring Notebooks by another individual in the earlier
> postings
> were enough to verify this point, and I included a few paragraphs of
> further
> examples taken from my 3 page letter which I presented to Cowan, in
> answer
> to his question, confirming this same fact. Below I have included
> Cowan's
> exact question to which I was responding, followed by my response which
> leads to the material out of my notes which was posted earlier. Since
> my
> letter is 3 pages long, it is too much to post in a forum, but anyone
> who
> would like to read my complete opinion on the origin, basis and
> originality
> of these techniques is welcome to email me a
> institute@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> and I will send them the complete letter as originally sent to Cowan.
>
> Cowan's question:
>
> Regarding my use of price-time vectors,
>
> Did you ever see Jerry Baumring use the techniques I have outlined in
> Lesson
> I to calculate a vector? Specifically, are you aware of him:
> (1) Measuring the price change between two points,
> (2) Measuring the time change between two points,
> (3) Squaring these 2 values
> (4) Summing these two squares.
> (5) And taking the square root of this sum to arrive at a vector
> length?
> (6) If so, did he ever speak or write about this to anyone in his
> seminars?
> Sincerely, Bradley Cowan
>
> Following are the three paragraphs from which Cowan extracted my quote,
> which will be much more clear in their correct context:
>
> "This is a difficult question to answer in a direct or absolute manner
> due
> to the nature of the teaching style and philosophy of Dr. Baumring,
> which
> Greg Ruff, Brad Cowan and I well understand, all having been students of
> Dr.
> Baumring. Dr. Baumring did not believe in the standard teaching
> methodologies according to which a student is presented with an
> explanation
> of the material to be learned which is then memorized and applied to
> case
> examples. He believed that this style of explanation and regurgitation
> did
> the student a disservice in that it continually left the student
> dependent
> upon explanation for each further step of his education. In
> contradistinction to this style of education, Dr. Baumring based his
> teaching methodologies upon the principle “Give a man a fish and you
> feed
> him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.”
>
> "With this principle in mind, Dr. Baumring would present specific
> selections
> of reading material covering key topics and concepts organized in a very
> specific sequential format. For his seminars he would present a
> notebook
> made up of a selection of such topical information sequentially
> presented,
> which the student was expected to have read before the seminar. In the
> lecture during the seminar, he would then draw sometimes vague,
> sometimes
> specific correlations between the different topics presented in the
> notebooks, show technical applications on financial market charts, give
> explanations of subjects seemingly having no relation to the notebook
> selections, and give the students numerous clues as to how to pursue
> their
> research in order to unify the seemingly fragmented information
> presented in
> the notebooks and lectures. This methodology forced the student to be
> responsible for his own learning process, and to think for himself,
> rather
> than to merely regurgitate another’s understanding. Dr. Baumring forced
> his
> students to become research scientists, requiring them to engage in
> extensive background study, followed by attempts at practical market
> application often ending in failure, followed by reanalysis of the
> problem,
> until the student, with minimal guidance, would arrive through personal
> discovery at an insight, easily reproducible and comprehensible since
> the
> student had worked to arrive at the discovery himself.
>
> "Holding this methodological distinction in mind, it becomes clear why
> this
> is a hard question to answer particularly in consideration of the
> context of
> a dispute over the application of a conceptual or intellectual
> property. I
> can answer the question of whether Dr. Baumring ever, to my knowledge,
> presented a step by step explanation of the PTV calculation technique
> exactly as presented by Bradley Cowan in Four-Dimensional Stock Market
> Structures and Cycles. The answer would be no, as he rarely presented
> any
> step by step methodological process, but instead presented the
> conceptual
> foundations and clues to their correlation and application, leaving the
> intelligent and hard-working student to discover these conceptual
> correlations and applications himself, as Brad Cowan has successfully
> and
> respectfully done.
>
> "Besides this, Dr. Baumring’s methodology was to present a holistic
> synthesis interrelating a vast array of universal processes and natural
> laws
> leading to an understanding and analysis of the laws of a natural
> phenomenon, such as the multidimensional growth of a market. " ***Here
> follows the few paragraphs previously posted, with examples of
> Baumring's
> presentations and discussions of the Pythagorean theorem, vectors and
> the
> other bases of Cowan's techniques..***
>
> The letter continues by further explaining that even without Baumring's
> presentation of this material, the Pythagorean Theorem is a 2500 year
> old
> formula as presented by Pythagoras, and originates even much further
> back in
> time than that, having been understood by the Vedic and Egyptian
> civilizations even earlier, whence Pythagoras learned it. When one
> understands that to merely take this theorem as taught to every high
> school
> student in geometry class, and label the horizontal axis "Time", and the
> vertical axis "Price", the hypotenuse would be "Time-Price", and by the
> most
> simple presentation of the concept of a vector, one would have this
> entire
> procedure. Cowan himself states that Baumring included excerpts of
> concepts
> for simple engineering and math books which everyone knows, and it
> should be
> clear how valuable these simple excerpts are when presented together in
> the
> context of the markets. Cowan was a perceptive student and applied
> these
> techniques which were then presented in detail with applications in his
> books. His clear presentation of it, however, does not make it his
> original
> idea or application. This theorem has been used in many fields in
> similar
> ways for millennia. Cowan may have trademarked the names "PTV" and
> "Price-Time Vector", but a trademark only refers to the name, not to any
> ownership of any rights of intellectual property, which is a completely
> different issue altogether, and is not something that could be
> exclusively
> owned by him as it has been public domain for thousands of years. All
> of
> this is explained in my original letter to Cowan.
>
> This should clear up the who said what issue, and as I mentioned, anyone
> requiring further validation of these facts is welcome to read this
> complete
> letter themselves.
>
> There seem to be several further issues around which many of these
> discussions are centered, to which I can hopefully add some further
> clarification. Two in particular are: 1.) Was Cowan influenced by
> Baumring,
> and is he neglecting to give credit where deserved and instead
> attempting to
> discredit the Baumring's work ? 2.) Is Cowan's work itself of value
> whatever its origins?
>
> Concerning the first question, I think the general consensus, and the
> considerable proof presented make it clear that the subject of vectors
> used
> for calculating market price and time action was a fundamental element
> of
> Baumring's teaching. Everyone who has ever studied Baumring's work is
> clear
> that the material presented by Cowan is extremely similar to that
> previously
> presented by Baumring. Knowing that Cowan studied with Baumring for a
> period of years, attending 7 seminars, it is hard to believe that he was
> not
> influenced by the teaching he received, or else why would he have
> continued
> to attend at all? Had Cowan even simply given an honorable mention to
> Baumring in any of his books, none of these questions would have ever
> arisen. However, since Cowan prefaces his first book with the statement
> in
> bold capitals, "IT IS THE AUTHOR'S INTENTION THROUGHOUT THIS COURSE TO
> GIVE
> CREDIT FOR ANY MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED BY ANOTHER
> AUTHOR, OR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY ANYONE ELSE", the question
> of
> origins and credit of source material has become a matter of controversy
> since the first release of his books. Many of his first books were sold
> to
> past Baumring students most of whom have expressed their surprise at the
> lack of mention of Baumring's influence, when it is clear that even the
> suggested study list contained in the first pages of Cowan's first book
> also
> comes right out of Baumring's teachings and Notebooks. It is funny that
> Cowan chides what he calls the freshman/sophomore reading material of
> the
> Baumring Notebooks, then goes on to recommend exactly the same
> material. I
> wonder how many people would consider Gann, Cole, Plato, Tubbs,
> Helmholtz,
> Bayer, Blavatsky, Garrett, and the dozens of other famous and highly
> respected scientists, philosophers, traders, mystics, and metaphysicians
> contained in Baumring Notebooks as freshman/sophomore material. Most of
> the
> material contained in those Notebooks was written by authors who command
> a
> considerably higher level of respect and veneration than he who accuses
> them
> of simplicity. And there is far more than just engineering and science
> sections in those Notebooks, there is a considerable amount of rare
> market
> material, metaphysics, and much much more in those several thousand
> pages of
> background selections.
>
> These questions have been continually under debate for about 6 years
> now,
> and I have, over this time, heard Cowan's own statements vary radically
> regarding his relationship to Baumring and his valuation of Baumring's
> work.
> Most individuals for years had no idea that Cowan ever studied with
> Baumring, and it was not a topic that was made generally known, but in
> more
> recent times it has become more common knowledge. In my personal
> correspondences with Cowan and interaction with many of his closest
> followers, there has always been a general recognition of the value of
> Baumring's work, but then I am informed of these extremist statements
> posted
> in some of these discussion groups that Cowan learned NOTHING from
> Baumring
> nor did anyone with an engineering background, and that Baumring was
> primarily a charismatic salesman who only made money from his private
> students, I know that these are antagonistic and defensive statements
> which
> do not adhere to the truth.
>
> I mentioned before that Cowan himself has made statements to me
> confirming
> the value of Baumring's work and even asking, himself, to be involved in
> its
> further distribution and development, something which I did not feel was
> appropriate considering exactly these issues we are again discussing
> now. I
> quote the following from a letter addressed to me, from Brad Cowan,
> dated
> 8/27/94, in response to the fulfillment of an exchange made between
> Cowan
> and myself, of some of my personal notes from my studies with Baumring
> for
> some of his materials. The letter begins with Cowan asking for a better
> copy of my notes as they were written in pencil and the copies were hard
> to
> read, then:
>
> "Also, I will honor your request to not show these notes to anyone."
>
> "I may be interested in working out a business arrangement with you in
> the
> future where I would publish these notes and edit my comments at various
> stages of the thought process. This would be the exact opposite of what
> you
> are thinking now in keeping these notes private. If you are interested
> in
> doing this is would be a huge amount of work on my part. I would want
> to
> add a first chapter on the life of Jerry Baumring. This decision is up
> to
> you. We would have to work out a percentage agreement. One thing is
> certain, you would recover your 25K, albeit not through the mechanism
> you
> originally thought. Book royalties last a lifetime."
>
> "I have skimmed some of the notes (parts that are readable) and was kind
> of
> amazed that he taught material that I had to find on my own. Some of
> the
> similarities between my work and what he taught a few "chosen" students
> are
> uncanny."
>
> The letter concludes with a paragraph about his learning of Baumring's
> death, and the release of his own books. With these comments in mind,
> it
> will probably not be hard for others to see why I have always been aware
> of
> Cowan's recognition of the value of Baumring's work, and have been
> continuously surprised when I have heard extremist statements about
> Baumring
> being a fraud, a charlatan, and about there being no similarity between
> Cowan's and his work. Here you have it out of the horse's mouth, and I
> would be happy to show this letter to anyone who needs further
> verification,
> if necessary. It is clear that Cowan would not be interested in writing
> a
> biography and commentary on Baumring's work if he did not respect it and
> think it of value. And he says outright that the similarities between
> his
> and Baumring's work are "uncanny". Personally I never found them that
> uncanny considering that Cowan studied with Baumring and attended 7
> seminars. Whether Cowan learned nothing at those seminars and just
> coincidentally happened to find much of the same material himself I'll
> leave
> up to everyone's own judgment.
>
> Cowan comments at my pettiness in mentioning the Chatelain material,
> however, my mention of the Chatelain material which also was originally
> not
> credited, was simply a further example of the same problem. Considering
> the
> opening statement of Cowan's books, it would seem that such details
> would be
> of greatest importance, since he states that as his first intent,
> himself.
> I am happy that Brad has now included a reference to the Chatelain
> material,
> though this legally may not even be enough since the book is still under
> Copyright, meaning that permission from the publisher to include this
> material is very likely necessary for its legal inclusion in Cowan's
> book.
> I'm not so sure that such points can be considered nit-picky considering
> they are based upon Federal Copyright Law.
>
> Cowan also asks me why Baumring had such a high drop out rate. I'm not
> sure
> what he is talking about because after four years of teaching, over 30
> of
> the 40 original students of the first seminar series were still
> attending,
> and two further series of seminars had been started with around 30 more
> students in each because of the continually increasing demand for
> Baumring's
> teachings. Having spent considerable time at the Investment Centre, I
> know
> that there was a continuous flow of new interest in the seminars, mostly
> as
> a result of referrals from current students. Cowan also mentions a
> number
> of rumors about Baumring's trading, personal habits and the like. I can
> only say that there are always people who have mud to sling at anyone
> they
> take issue with, just as we have seen Cowan make many of questionable
> statements in these discussions which have now been shown to clearly
> contradict opinions and facts that he previously stated. I would advise
> everyone to judge a man by his work and his own personal statements and
> integrity rather than by rumor and hearsay.
>
> Cowan also asks about Wendy Baumring's need for royalties from her
> husband's
> courses. The primary answer to this is that it is her legal right.
> Baumring's compilations are protected under Federal Copyright Law, and
> when
> Cowan states that, "If it would not be such a pain in the neck, I would
> just
> copy those notebooks and give them away free to anyone that wanted
> them," I
> wonder at his sense of honesty and integrity in even considering to
> steal
> the legal rights of Baumring's widow to receive the royalties on the
> publications of her deceased husband. Federal Law can truly be a pain
> in
> the neck, as Cowan makes clear to everyone in his non-disclosure
> agreements
> and in his listing of fines for abuse of his rights listed in his books.
> Everyone with Cowan's attitude should have no problem just photo-copying
> his
> books and giving them out for free, as he has considered doing with
> Baumring's work. Both Lambert-Gann and the Sacred Science Institute
> have
> already experienced this philosophy of Cowan's, since he pirated the
> material for his Gann Courses from the originals he purchased from
> Lambert-Gann and the Investment Centre, and then turned around and
> copied
> them and began selling them to the public at radically reduced prices
> with
> his company name stamped all over the pages, for his sole personal
> benefit.
> I wonder myself at Cowan's need to go to the trouble to appropriate
> other's
> materials in order to sell discounted copies of them himself when he is
> supposedly making million dollar trades.
>
> Regarding the success of various Baumring students, I know that Cowan is
> not
> even in contact with more than a few of Baumring's students, and has no
> idea
> of their trading abilities or financial circumstances, so anything he
> could
> say on this topic is marginal and even contradicted by a number of old
> Baumring students in the public arena. By the same token, has anyone
> out
> there yet found a Cowan student who is making consistent profits using
> his
> trading methods? I know a number of people who have been studying
> Cowan's
> work since its first release, and have not had one tell me that it works
> to
> the level that they are making consistent forecasts and good money from
> it.
> Isn't that where these discussion forums began??
>
> Lastly, there is the question of the value of Cowan's work, whatever the
> truth of its source and originality. In all fairness to Cowan, I will
> readily acknowledge that his work is interesting and useful as a
> supplement
> to the more holistic teachings of Baumring, Gann, Bayer and the great
> market
> masters. As Cowan stated earlier in these discussions, his work covers
> primarily two areas, PTV's and Planetary Cycles. These are two of the
> top
> dozen most important topics originally presented by Baumring, and the
> serious Baumring or Gann student will find some useful research compiled
> in
> Cowan's books which will be helpful in putting together the larger
> picture.
> But there is much, much more to market forecasting and Gann theory than
> PTV's and Planetary Cycles. Cowan states himself that supposedly no one
> ever used PTV's before, so if Gann didn't use them, there is obviously
> much
> more to Gann, and since everyone knows that Gann used both geocentric
> and
> heliocentric astrology, considering Cowan only uses heliocentric there
> is
> again, obviously much more needed. However, Cowan's books do represent
> some
> of the only material which further elaborates the correct paradigm as
> originally presented by Gann and Baumring, and from that standpoint it
> is
> useful in a complete study. Just don't expect it to be all conclusive,
> there is much, much more to studying financial market forecasting than
> reading 3 books. Every serious student should understand this and be
> prepared to pursue every valuable lead they can possible find and to
> accumulate every piece of valuable material they have the opportunity to
> acquire. The reason that the Sacred Science Institute possesses such a
> huge
> number of resources is that we purchase everything important we can find
> on
> every subject of interest, as did Baumring and as does every other
> serious
> researcher, leaving us with a library containing over 10,000 volumes of
> rare
> and important material. Everyone need not read this many books, since
> teachers such as Gann and Baumring have left reading lists for serious
> students to pursue, but anyone who does not follow these leads at
> minimum,
> will be very unlikely to make much progress in their research. Remember
> what Gann said, "Knowledge is Power!"
>
> So enough, this should hopefully cover just about everything there is to
> say, and remove some of the misconception which exists surrounding these
> issues. Anyone with further questions may contact me at
> institute@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, or may visit our website at
> www.sacreedscience.com where many similar points are further discussed.
>
> I wish you the best of luck in your research,
>
> Brad Stewart
|