Comments on this site....

Discussion in 'Trading' started by RockTheLurker, Aug 20, 2001.

  1. Babak



    1] interesting that you do not acknowledge that I was correct about the 1999 performance. Nor do you acknowledge that you did not understand the concept of annualized return. Just a while back you were yelling at the top of your lungs that I was lying and insulting me. Not that I was expecting an apology.

    2] re 2001 performance: I cut + pasted the performance of from a previous thread (a bit lazy to calculate it all over again) Apparently since the time of the thread (Aug 7th) he has done a bit better.

    Perhaps you were not reading at that time. I am not following as closely as you are because I don't subscribe to his service.

    The up to date trading return for 2001: 5.3%
    if we include int income it is 8.4%

    So yes after all the insults and nasty names you called me I do acknowledge that I made a mistake and didn't calculate the up to date performance of

    Instead of 1.96% as I stated before it is actually 5.3%

    You be the judge whether that is "good money"

    2] you constantly throw out this $200,000 amount. If I make $1000 but that is on equity of $50,000 that is one thing, if I made the same $1000 on equity of $2000 that is another. That is why we use %. And that is why I brought to light his small % returns as above.

    3] you constantly insult me and imply that I have ulterior motives. Anyone reading my posts will see that this is simply not true. I am not perfect (see point 2) but I do not lie nor do I have a hidden agenda. How does knowing shortboy's name mean that I have "an axe to grind"? Simply ludicrous.

    4] you are new to and I want to welcome you to this site. It is a place on the internet that I really like and enjoy. Please refrain from making ideas we discuss personal. Stick to the concepts and do not insult others.

    If you persist in the manner you have started you will not be welcome here.
    #51     Aug 30, 2001
  2. vvv


    look, this is getting way out of hand here, i sugest that all threads and postings RE unsubstantiated and unaudited claims by "signalsellers" be eliminated from this board...

    you guys have lots of other boards to push your stuff on without having to seriously impair the excellent to-date quality of elite trader...

    pushing and hyping of schemers who derive their main income from selling unaudited "follow-my-signals-and-you'll-get-rich-stuff" simply doesn't belong on a quality board.

    particularly as it's always the same one or two people doing the same hyping.
    #52     Aug 30, 2001
  3. don't see any hype, vvv, just some debate. Show me the hype, if you can find any, which you can't.

    As for "unsubstantiated claims and unaudited results", ask Babak if this is the case. He seems to have followed shortboy for a while.

    In any event, I defend the site I subscribe to, and I don't like distortions.

    But I will honor the wishes of others and leave this topic alone.


    good trading to all, and whatever works for you.
    #53     Aug 30, 2001
  4. Babak



    I agree. Last time I checked this was not

    The only reason I'm here in this thread is to expose the hype and misinformation.

    Hype: Screaming that made $200,000 over two years

    Fact: trading performance of is as follows:

    1999 8.39% (half year)
    2000 18.67% (full year)
    2001 5.3% (up to now)

    Calling the above "good money" is a stretch to say the least. Especially considering that 2000 was manna from heaven for short sellers after years and years of famine.

    #54     Aug 30, 2001
  5. or I wouldn't have come to the defense of shortboy.

    You stop your misinformation, and I won't come back to correct your distortions.

    As the evidence shows, a few posters have been irked by Babak's constant distortions and falsehoods. And all were started by Babak. It's plain and simple. Check the thread.

    Babak, you stop. And there's no problem.

    And don't lie and say you're here to stop misinformation. You started the discussion of "interest".


    happy trading to all.
    #55     Aug 30, 2001
  6. Babak


    Pray tell what 'misinformation' have I started??

    As I recall you are the one :

    1] attacking me personally, calling me a "liar", "jealous" etc
    2] mistaking annualized returns with normal returns
    3] typing again again that shortboy made $200,000
    4] and that this is "good money"

    shall I go on?

    Whereas I only use facts, such as his trading performance:

    1999 8.39% (half year)
    2000 18.67% (full year)
    2001 5.3% (up to now)

    #56     Aug 30, 2001
  7. babak:

    "Fact: trading performance of is as follows:

    1999 8.39% (half year)
    2000 18.67% (full year)
    2001 5.3% (up to now)

    Calling the above "good money" is a stretch to say the least. Especially considering that 2000 was manna from heaven for short sellers after years and years of famine. "

    If you were an accountant , you'd be fired. All bear funds and all hedge funds add interest to their performances. Any audit from a reputable avccounting firm adds interest, because it's the law.

    It would be deceptive NOT to go by GAAP accounting like shortboy does.

    His true performace:

    1999 11% in half a year (S&P up 20% that year) that's very impressive to make money, as a short seller, in 1999

    2000 26%

    2001 9% YTD

    That's what an audit would show, the COMPLETE figures. Any hedge fund would use COMPLETE returns. It's the law.

    Now i'm done. I've exposed Babak as a sniveling, lying, jealous "person". get a life, Babak!


    p.s. I'll be back if you continue to slander, o.k. Babak?
    #57     Aug 30, 2001
  8. BABAK you should know better.

    Look in the right hand upper area of this thread. It says

    Your Account, Become a Member, Help, Search

    Go to Your Account. than find the red hit edit ignore list

    type in mistermark as I have just done.

    YES I did because I asked him to stop and he hasn't. Babak I've read things of quality from you so I won't ignore you but I don't have time to read this cr*p.

    IT WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Mistermark don't bother replying to me or writing to me as I won't be able to read it and I'm fine with that as I'm sick of this debate.

    WOW another Update. I added TradeRX to my ignore list and it is Sooooo much easier to read all of the threads. I suggest others do the same even though he no longer posts here.

    #58     Aug 30, 2001
  9. Babak

    Babak is NOT a hedge fund. If he was then you would be investing your money in his fund. Rather you are buying signals from him.

    As such, it is important to look at his TRADING performance to see how good he is.

    In each and every post re this matter I have made the distinction of TRADING performance and TOTAL performance (which includes interest).

    shortboy makes a significant portion of his performance by earning interest on his cash. This is totally legal and in compliance with the SEC regulations. I have stated this before.

    People pay him for performance. Trading performance. He has a duty to present his trading performance acurately. Otherwise, compliant or not, it is misleading.

    For example, it is misleading to say that he made 11.4% in 1999 when he was only responsible for 8.39%. The difference was his interest income.

    rtharp, done.
    #59     Aug 30, 2001
  10. Magna

    Magna Administrator


    I've exposed Babak as a sniveling, lying, jealous "person". get a life, Babak!

    There's no need for these insults and personal attacks, period. Babak has been around for awhile and has a history of thoughtful, useful posts on a wide range of subjects that contribute to all members.

    You just started on this site a few days ago and you've already got close to 20 posts involved in this argument, many of them hurling insults. In short, you haven't been around and you don't have any history here, nor credibility yet.

    A few members have already set their ignore function to exclude you. I'd like to refrain from that at this time if it's possible, but enough is enough.
    #60     Aug 30, 2001