Cindy T. took the challenge of presenting this complex book
to us. She read it twice and devised an ingenious game, in which we each chose
one among 4 companies to invest in: 3 were described by Browder with narratives
about their privatization while he was in Russia, and one was a Brazilian
company. I think the largest number of us chose the Brazilian company, feeling
that staying away from Russian investments was safest; choices among the 3
Russian companies were mixed. Cindy gave chocolate prizes to everyone, based on
whether they hit a jackpot or chose a tanked investment. Thanks to Cindy for
her fun and engaging presentation, which also served to remind us about some of
the details about business in Russia during the book.
Cindy also sent everyone a list of questions before the
meeting. She kindly stated that the questions were just for brief thought. Here
are my notes from our discussion of some of those questions:
Question #1 – How do you view the author’s transformation
from creating wealth in Russia to becoming a human rights activist?
Ken: Browder realized his mistake, but he had already made
plenty of money. Ken gave him credit for his zeal in the cause.
Joyce M: Browder realized he couldn’t make things happen in
Russia anymore.
Cindy V: Browder liked the revenge of embarrassing Russia.
Pam: Understands Browder’s guilt but didn’t think he needed
to feel that guilt, because he got everyone out of Russia except Sergei, and Sergei
could have gotten out but made his own mistake of choosing to stay. Pam said
that since Sergei was the youngest and had grown up after the USSR had been
dissolved, he trusted his government.
I agreed with all the above comments. My original thought
upon reading the question before the discussion was that Browder’s efforts and
zeal were wonderful and worthy of respect. I was glad Browder had not lost his
fortune, so that he could pursue the Magnitsky Act. See next question for a
critique about Browder.
Question #2 – Do you find the book to be fair and accurate,
or are there conflicting opinions?
After starting discussion on this question, Cindy T. told us
about a German documentary that said that the United States government believed
that Browder was lying. This documentary criticized Browder for neglecting to
go to Amnesty International and some other major peace organizations to plead Magnitsky’s
cause before Magnitsky was killed. Thus, the documentary implied that Browder
hadn’t done enough of what he could have done.
Pam: Believed Browder’s memoir rather than comments on the
Internet.
Shirley: Each person has their own truth.
Carla: Reputable news businesses do try to inform people. Carla recommends the
movie, “Vice,” which exposes the history behind the beginnings of Fox News.
Cindy: One indication that Browder was telling the truth
about the Russian oligarchs is a video Browder published on YouTube of a Russian
ministry official who raided offices as a policeman but had Internet photos of himself
in lavish surroundings that a mere policeman could not have afforded.
Pam: During a lot of the time that Sergei was in prison,
Browder was busy starting his new global business (without Russian investments),
to please his investors. Thus, he could not spend more time publicizing and
seeking support for Magnitsky’s cause.
Browder's company is not currently prevalent on the Internet. Wikipedia lists the closest statement I could find online about the current status of hermitage Capital: “In
April 2007, the firm launched Hermitage Global, an activist fund
focused on global emerging markets.
Since
2015, Hermitage has operated as a family office hedge fund based in London,
having returned outside capital to investors. The focus of the fund is still in
emerging markets.”
There are still loose ends to this true story. Maybe we will get news of some important developments that will tie them.
