think what? why do you keep talking about terrorism? Am I supposed to say "patrick byrne is a great American, what a patriot" or something? I still don't care that some guy that was naked shorting and funneled money to terrorists. It has nothing to do with patrick byrne being a wackjob
13:07 LEH Lehman Brothers: CNBC commentator says LEH CEO Fuld has told Wall St. execs and regulators that he has information that short-selling hedge funds colluded to bring about the demise of BSC (43.15 +5.51) -Update- So, Dick Fuld is defending his company, but Patrick Byrne is crazy. Facts hurt, don't they ?You are watching CNBC eat their own, and throw Greenberg to the wolves.
Actually, Fuld is using the Bear info because he more than likely is afraid they'll be aftyer LEH next. What was the price tag? 30BB????? Nice. Oh. And where did he get the info? Do you think he could have gone down to his trading desks? Would it be that easy? My bet? Yes.
13:07 LEH Lehman Brothers: CNBC commentator says LEH CEO Fuld has told Wall St. execs and regulators that he has information that short-selling hedge funds colluded to bring about the demise of BSC (43.15 +5.51) -Update- Assuming this news is correct. "Actually, Fuld is using the Bear info because he more than likely is afraid they'll be aftyer LEH next." This is a logical assumption. The news release would be the motive for your assumption. The news does not have to be substantiated. It can just be reported as a factual assumption, mission accomplished, no follow up, no collaberation, no film at 11. Hedge fund won't collude againt leh. The news could be "misspoken" to use a hillary euphenism.
which are you referring to LEH, BSC or both? first of all, that isn't a fact that hedge funds colluded. LEH's ceo just said he has evidence. it would be in their interest to blame anyone but themselves. that said, it wouldn't surprise me if hedge funds were short and spreading rumors. Unless LEH has recorded conversations or emails, it will be hard to prove. OSTK is not comparable, $10 was a really generous valuation let alone $77 or whatever the peak was. Have any of Byrne's claims been proven? Has he won any of his lawsuits. Bottom line, ostk was not worth $77, or even $10. If shorts were the reason ostk came back to earth, the stock wouldn't have sat at $10 for most of the past few years, it would have recovered. Short sellers served a legitimate purpose. And short sellers will always be the scapegoats of some executive that can't run a company.