More proof reporters (the media) are captured: t Journal Blew Chance to Expose Madoff February 04, 2009 http://seekingalpha.com/article/118...nce-to-expose-madoff?source=article_lb_author A bombshell is buried in Harry Markopolos's prepared testimony (.pdf) http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MarkopolosTestimony20090203.pdf to a House panel today: he contacted the Wall Street Journal on the Bernie Madoff fraud three years ago, and the newspaper did nothing. It seems that the Journal missed an opportunity to achieve one of the biggest scoops in financial history, win a Pulitzer Prize and all that other good stuff -- and extinguish the biggest fraud in financial history. Markopolos says as follows: [Pat Burns, communications director at Taxpayers Against Fraud] put me in contact with John Wilke, senior investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau. Mr. Wilke and I would become friends over the next three years. Unfortunately, as eager as Mr. Wilke was to investigate the Madoff story, it appears that the Wall Street Journal's editors never gave him approval to start investigating. As you will see from my extensive e-mail correspondence with him over the next several months, there were several points in time in which he was getting ready to book air travel to start the story and then would get called off at the last minute. I never determined if the senior editors at the Wall Street Journal failed to authorize this investigation. According to his timeline, he contacted the Journal in December 2005. The emails to which he alludes can be found here. At another point in his testimony, Markopolos pays the Journal the ultimate non-compliment by lumping together the newspaper with the lunkheads at the SEC, saying, "Unfortunately neither the Wall Street Journal nor SEC were inclined to even pick up a phone and dial any of the leads I provided to them." Amazing, huh? Not to me. As I pointed out in Wall Street Versus America, in the mid-1990s "a few traders tried to arouse the interest of the Journal in the inside details of Mob infiltration of Wall Street firms -- and the Journal, after some initial interest, did nothing." Back then, the traders went to another highly regarded reporter. No point in mentioning his name, because the fault, as with Madoff, was apparently with his editors. However, Markopolos's experiences with journalists weren't all quite so dismal. He contacted Michael Ocrant, a reporter at MAR/Hedge, who ran his own article on Madoff in 2001, several days before the more widely reported Barron's article on the same subject. Greg Newton, now writer of the terrific Naked Shorts blog (which alluded to the Journal's failure yesterday), was publisher of MAR/Hedge at the time. But back then Markopolos didn't have all the information he had developed by 2005, which he was willing to give to the
Now, don't we all feel like just so many suckers???!!!!!????? http://www.deepcapture.com/bernard-madoff-a-threat-and-the-friends-of-michael-milken/ I do have to say, seeing things here I, and a very special friend I met here included in this piece is very, very rewarding. Thanks, friend!
Now WHY would Gary Weiss be defending a practice that is so obviously illegal, that it is not arguable? Do reporters front run for hedgefunds? This boil on the ass of humanity makes the stupidest , most illogical argument possilble by anything calling itself human. That, and the fact that FFH beat all the other insurance companies in their management of portfolios. Friday, February 13, 2009 The Chanos Sideshow Creepy corners of the Internet that promote anti-short-selling conspiracy theories are giddy today over news that the SEC may be taking a look at Jim Chanos, who exposed Enron, for the heinous crime of talking about an analyst report before it was issued. The horror! To the anti-shorting fruitcakes, you see, talking about an analyst report before it is issued is fine, if you are going to buy the stock. To them, you see, there is no stock, no matter how foul, that should ever decline. That's why so many naked shorting troubadors wind up behind bars or spend their lives dodging SEC subpoenas. But doing so much as crossing the street against the light is a hanging offense, the theory goes, if short-selling be the intent. The problem with this latest escapade is that it's arguable at best whether what Chanos did is even the teeniest bit illegal, as Felix Salmon explains. He calls the whole thing a "sideshow," which is an understatement. That won't prevent short-hating Neanderthals from using this as an excuse to attack shorts, particularly with Overstock.com's nutter CEO Patrick Byrne on a campaign contribution spree. Dan Colarusso says at Clusterstock that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who ably represents the Stock Fraud Capital of the World, has "laid siege to short-selling in the past." So stay tuned. © 2009 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved. Here are real stories telling you the truth about frontrunning research, and the illegalities. http://www.securitiesdocket.com/200...rading-in-advance-of-negative-analyst-report/ http://www.dailyadvance.com/business/sec-probing-alleged-improper-trades-by-hedge-funds-433872.html Yes, I know it was common practice. But as I said, the populace is armed to the teeth, and the SEC is a shell of its former self.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-tucker/how-9000-business-reporte_b_167142.html How 9,000 Business Reporters Blew The Mother Of All Meltdowns Diane Tucker Independent writer/producer/director Posted February 15, 2009 | 10:31 PM (EST) How could an army of business reporters blow the biggest story since The Great Depression? That's the musical question posed by former Wall Street Journal business and investigative reporter Dean Starkman, while he was doing a little freelancing this month for Mother Jones magazine. Starkman said you may be surprised how many business editors blame you, dear reader. "If we had written stories in late 2000 saying this whole thing's going to collapse," said Fortune managing editor Andy Serwer, "people would have said, 'Ha ha, maybe,' and gone about their business." Ditto Marcus Brauchli, executive editor of the Washington Post: "I regret that when I was at the Wall Street Journal, we didn't keep the focus on some of these questions, including the possible moral hazard posed by the structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But these are really difficult issues to convey to a popular audience." Well, dudes, what did you offer us doofuses instead? Edgy-yet-flattering profiles of Merrill Lynch's Stan O'Neal and Lehman Brothers' Dick Fuld...those pieces noting how Countrywide Financial's Angelo Mozilo liked to dress well...the Home Depot marketing stories...all the cheerleading and Flip That House fluff that diverted resources from the real task at hand. Starkman took down Wall Street reporters for delivering personality-driven stories instead of deconstructing balance sheets or figuring out risk. Coverage of Citigroup produced reams of profiles of its influential former chief, Sandy Weill, his successor, Chuck Prince, and his protege-turned-rival, Jaime Dimon, but precious little about Citigroup's role in bringing subprime lending from the mortgage industry's margins into the mainstream. To be fair, the business press was stressed out by its own rounds of white-knuckle layoffs. The disintegration of the financial media's own financial underpinnings could not have come at a worse time. Office politics became Byzantine, and productivity demands on the newsroom -- more, faster -- grew ever more pronounced. Time-consuming investigations were undertaken at the reporter's own risk. If a lead didn't pan out -- no matter why -- it hit your productivity numbers, putting your career in peril. Okay, so dead-tree journalism was partly to blame. But didn't regulators also fail to do their jobs? Back in the 1980s, a great deal of tough Wall Street coverage was driven by the aggressive work of prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission. But then came the Clinton-era push toward deregulation that reached its extreme during the Bush administration, as the federal government unceremoniously pulled the finance cops off the beat. For a time, Eliot Spitzer filled the void with his aggressive prosecution of Wall Street misdeeds, but for the most part, covering financial corruption without regulators was like trying to clap with one hand. Let me get this straight. The only person patrolling Wall Street was Eliot Spitzer? But wasn't he preoccupied with another kind of street activity? And while we're on the subject of riveting television, I recall watching Lehman employees carrying out boxes of records, a spectacle that pushed Bloomberg columnist Jonathan Weil over the edge: "Is there anybody left in the government with a pulse? Where's the yellow police tape? How about a cease-and-desist order to prevent document destruction? Can anyone give me a good reason why Lehman offices shouldn't be treated as a crime scene now?" Can anyone give me a good reason why Bernie Madoff is still livin' la vida loca in a penthouse? Why Merill Lynch is getting away (so far) with secretly handing out bonuses? "It's true the federal regulators disappeared. But there were lots of state regulators who were going after this in a big way, lots of people on the ground, lawyers, consumer advocates, scholars, who saw what was happening, and the press didn't give them much attention," said former WSJ reporter Michael Hudson. Hudson is now with the Center for Responsible Lending. Some Mother Jones readers included Starkman on their dishonor roll: How could you possibly write a story about MSM reporters who missed the big collapse, and ignore all the bloggers that warned repeatedly about the coming misadventures in real estate, credit, derivatives, and finance? That's the real takeaway from this era -- traditional journalism left a vacuum, one that was quickly filled. -- Barry Ritholtz, 2/11/2009, 5:53 PM What Dean [Starkman] forgets is that he blew it as well. A few of us did write tough stories about Wall Street. I was there, and I can tell you Dean wasn't one of them. -- Charles Gasparino, 2/11/2009, 8:38 PM Some Mother Jones readers accused MSM business writers of now acting as apologists for the culprits: I've lost track of the articles I've read attempting to "explain" how so many bright people made such a bad mistake. The upshot is that since everybody was doing it, and nobody wanted to get left behind, it was all perfectly normal, and nobody should be held accountable. Except that people's retirement accounts were wiped out. People are losing their homes, and now their jobs. -- Paul (no last name provided), 2/12/2009, 1:31 PM To read Dean Starkman's full story in Mother Jones, click here. To read in-depth reporting on the pros and cons of the new economic stimulus package designed to fix this mess, click....er....click... Who am I kidding? I can't think anyone in the MSM who is on top of this story, can you?
the story of Cramer/Greenberg and rescinded subpoenas: http://www.deepcapture.com/email-exposes-short-seller-plot-to-destroy-a-public-company/ This one is a barnburner. And they'll get better.
Gasparino reports GS has a meeting with hedgefunds, blah blah blah. GS comes out, Denies the meeting every happened. Gasparino is pissed, calls it "GS week". Rips them. Today, he reports Execs getting margin calls because the stock is cut in half, and they margined the stock to get into other deals. Didn't that happen a while ago? Why report it now? Anyway, great short into the news. Nice scalp. Cramer follows up, Charlie reports the same story the next hour, great scalp, Stock rallies into resistance, another setup. Somebody leaked that story to him, and a dollar to a donut, they were loaded for bear. Great racket. Different than the FFH gig, but effective. wouldn't it be nice, to be short you're fave fade, and then call Joe reporter and have him carry the water?
http://www.deepcapture.com/the-growing-gap-between-reality-and-the-media/ And the next big one coming should out one of the biggest names in the business. And I mean, one of the biggest.
deepcapture.com And the Beat Goes Onâ¦. (Jim Cramer, Joe Nocera, & Doug Kass) March 1st, 2009 by Patrick Byrne Iâm pretty sure that someone out there wants the finance system to crack. Not that anyoneâs wrong to suspect it might crack: Iâm the last guy on the planet that can be accused of being Panglossian. Not that they are wrong to decry the shenanigans of Wall Street in particular and the regulatory and political oversight of our finance system in general: the name of this blog is, after all, âDeepCapture.comâ. But for four years Iâve been eagerly flushing the handle while watching these guys circle the bowl. In that time Iâve developed a sense of how they operate. Iâm pretty sure now that their orders are, quite simply, to try to crack the system. We have Joe Noceraâs Sunday New York Times piece, âPropping Up a House of Cardsâ, that basically says AIG has the financial world by the throat and that as they die theyâll take the rest of the world with them. Maybe so. But one would think Nocera would be able to draw on better sources than Donn Vickrey. From what is publicly known about Donn Vickrey, from what has been publicly alleged (in these three affidavits) then publicly admitted, Noceraâs continued use of him as a source (and the New York Timesâ tolerance thereof) is a disgrace. That Nocera quotes shamelessly from him signals that the gang is back in town. But more interesting to me are recent pieces on Warren Buffett. The hit parade has been led by Doug Kass, a kind of half-bright Jim Cramer-wannabee, but Jim himself has added his own special brand of empty insinuation. From the last four weeks alone: January 27, 2009 âKass: Is This the End of Warren Buffett?â In full, this article reads (no kidding), âReflecting some of the above concerns and since late September 2008, Berkshireâs shares have fallen from $145,000 a share to $85,000 a share. There is no apparent end to the decline in sight. All good things, it seems, in markets and life, must come to an end.â That is to say, the entirety of the analysis Doug Kass performs is that something has gone lower therefore there is no end in sight to its going lower. (Isnât that the quintessential panic argument?) February 18 âCramer on BloggingStocks: Buffett sells Americaâ. February 18 âKass - Buffett Watch: Questions for the Oracle of Omaha - Doug Kass says Warren Buffettâs changes to the Berkshire portfolio raise more questions than answers.â February 20 âKass - Buffett Watch: Holdings Getting Hammered - The Berkshire Hathaway investment debacle continues apace.â February 23 âCramer: Buffett Watch - Jim Cramer advises investors to look at Warren Buffetâs inconsistencies before following his investment strategyâ. Interestingly, in this video Jim Cramer correctly predicts precisely what Kass is going to say on television later that night (not that there is coordination between them). February 24, 2009 Kass - âWhatâs Hot and Whatâs Not in 2009?â (Berkshire is listed as a âNotâ with a link to another Cramer hit piece) February 24 Kass âBuffett Watch: Bad News for HOG - Despite the assist from Buffett, there is some bad stuff in Harley-Davidsonâs 10-K.â Then February 28, the New York Times published a lie. In his annual shareholdersâ letter released that morning Buffett had written: âWeâre certain, for example, that the economy will be in shambles throughout 2009 - and, for that matter, probably well beyond - but that conclusion does not tell us whether the stock market will rise or fallâ (page 3). That evening, New York Times journalist David Segal published an article which states in the third paragraph: âBut he [Buffett] also needled regulators and an assortment of unnamed chief executives as he predicted that fallout from the credit crisis would leave the stock market a shambles through 2009.â Regarding a figure whose every utterance is scrutinized for meaning that can rock markets, such sloppiness is at best careless editing. Going on my one experience with New York Times Business Editor Lawrence Ingrassia (cf. âAnti-Investigative Reporter Joe Nocera and The Newspaper of Non-Recordâ) careless editing of a crucial point is not something I would put past him. Nor would I, for that matter, ask the fellow to whip up a batch of jet fuel. But the consistent direction of such little liberties with the truth must give one pause. As some readers may be aware, I have known Mr. Buffett since I was a lad, and after my parents, he has been perhaps my greatest teacher in life (which is certainly not to imply any endorsement from him on this Mitzvah of mine). However, I am not writing this article because of that connection, nor have I spoken to him of this, and I am sure he could give two hoots what these clowns write and say about him. Seeing a self-confessed criminal like Jim Cramer (âJim Cramer is a Complicated Manâ) attack Warren Buffettâs ethics is like seeing Ratso Rizzo (the Dustin Hoffman character in Midnight Cowboy) giving grooming lessons to Mr. Rogers, while seeing the New York Times using discredited sources and fabricating positions for Warren Buffett is nothing too unusual, as far as that goes. Instead, I am writing this because there is a pattern to which we of the Market Reform Movement began calling attention in the last few years, a pattern that is amply described in Chapter 2 of my work here (âJournalists Tried to Be Players But Became Pawnsâ) and in Mark Mitchellâs many Deep Capture pieces (e.g., âEmail Exposes Short Seller Plot to Destroy a Public Companyâ). These hedge fund squeegee boys got caught in a spotlight (and while mentioning DeepCapture is something they avoid like the plague, from reviewing the IP logs I know that every major news organization in America visits this site regularly and extensively, so I can promise you it is indeed in their spotlight). For a year or more, that pattern submerged itself. Tiny stabs were occasionally taken (see Bethanyâs piece on me on her way out the door of Fortune and my response: âDavid Einhorn, Cheryl Strauss, and the âUnavailableâ Bethany McLeanâ). But by and large, these stumblebums have been on their heels. Yet suddenly they return, quoting hedge fund choagies to support doomsday predictions while firing up an attack machine on Buffett, up to and including having the New York Times publish a fabrication regarding the single line in Buffettâs letter that will get more attention than any other. So in sum, it appears to me that certain folks have piled up a lot of favors in a favor bank, are short the market, and are using these HandiWipe journalists to crack it for them. As I said, no one can claim that I am just Dr. Pangloss: few have been out there arguing as loud and long as I that the sky might fall. But right at this moment, I smell skunk. Errata: DeepCapture has been relocating its servers and this has created numerous issues. A draft of this essay that was inadvertently set live last night at midnight had several errors which have been corrected: a number of flagrant typos were still present (corrected); I misidentified a law professor with a good history with one of San Diego hedge fund choagies (corrected & apologies); and the comments were accidentally turned off (corrected). In addition, you will continue to notice various other glitches occuring in the site: most text is in italics, buttons are appearing where they should not be, and the new navigation format is somewhat stillborn. When the move is completed this week thes problems should get cleared up as well.