Elgindy's defense similarly argued that the trader released the government information on his subscription Web site because he was crusading against corporate malfeasance. (Sounds hauntingly familiar, doesn't it?) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327442/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/690033/posts?page=53 Now, chew and on that, and then make something about Patrick up. Because this is a full four years before Byrne even knew about Naked Short Selling. I knew, though.
I think that the hyper critical people on this thread are the parasitic douchebags that Byrne is bringing to light. When a CEO involves himself in philanthropy, art, golf, playing bridge, etc.... we view that as typical CEO activity. But when a CEO starts pointing out how rotten our system has become - he is somehow ignoring his company, and those that listen are tin hat wearing freaks. These ad hominem attacks serve only to redirect the discussion away from the original post. How pathetic and how transparent.
really, steve? that's cool. and funny. too bad he didn't come out and say that before. the part of this that seems to elude some (or maybe just the 'flytiger') is that: -> byrne could be completely right about cramer, and STILL be a nutcase. and a terrible CEO. if he was no longer the CEO of the company, it would go up several points in a heartbeat. -> cramer can be far from a market guru, and yet still want to help people out. -> elgindy (who was acquitted of any pre-9/11 charges) can be a criminal several times over, and still have a good side to him that helps others out. here's one trader who cites amr as one of his three main influences: http://www.davemanuel.com/2007/06/25/anthony-elgindy-a-big-influence-in-my-trading-career/ byrne's blog piece on cramer was all over the place, and could have / should have used much more damning evidence, which is out there with a little research. stocks which were shorted to 100% (or more) of float include some such as TASR and TZOO. and because those companies had some combination of hype and future potential, the shorts got KILLED. they're far from the only examples. in fact, there's one that went up five-fold from its IPO price over four years, squeezing the shorts, making them run for the hills, despite not being a good company. oh, yeah, that's OSTK from 2002-2005. without the shorts, it never would have run as much. and the illegal actions done on the short side of trading are nowhere near - not even in the same ballpark as - the illegal stuff done on the long side. when the long side illegalities are even close to those on the short side, i'll show a little more concern.
and the illegal actions done on the short side of trading are nowhere near - not even in the same ballpark as - the illegal stuff done on the long side. when the long side illegalities are even close to those on the short side, i'll show a little more concern. ________________________ I'm with you on this one, esp "not in the same ballpark". An "evil short" reporter, for example, may make a false 'tip" to the sec and cause a stock drop, but imo this washes out much faster than a nebulous footnote buried in a 10k.
LMFAO, now I'm being chastised about not being up to date on some wall street/terrorist/naked shorting investigation that hasn't been in the news for a couple of years that I still don't give a shit about. Patrick Byrne is still a wackjob(even if he fights terrorism with his bare fucking hands). And apparently, so are you. Do you realize how bizarre your tangent has gotten?
I believe any article exposing Cramer is a good article even if its written by this Patrick Byrne guy. Anyone can see the damning evidence by tuning in nightly to the Mad Money show. Watch him say a stock is going much higher then it crashes down. Watch him say a stock is going lower and then it rebounds nicely. Its funny how all of the small cap loosely traded stocks he mentions have this mysterious volume the day before the show as if some type of news is out. One scan of the net and you find no news, why is the volume so high? Then it gets mentioned on the show that night. If it were not for message boards and blogs then I dont believe Cramer would be so exposed. CNBC and Cramer have a good legal department and sue whoever publishes a book or comes out with a newspiece against them. However, they cant sue all the blogsters and message forums. Good job Patrick...
Now that the assholes have emptied out the family photo albums, listen closely, and you will hear the next thing that will come home to roost. How do you think hedgies do 45% year after year? Talent? I know bright guys can't make a check. Seems llike everything they touch gets creamed. And then, they call the SEC, and not only will the SEC not help, but they investigate the tipster. Why didn't Elgindy ever have that problem?? You'll read about them in the new Fortune, as they try to shake out long holders into the open arms of the shorts. http://youtube.com/watch?v=J8xG-nU81Do
http://www.treas.gov:80/press/releases/hp898.htm Now, you know the Govt only reacts. What is it, Einstein, you think they now see?????