It boggles the mind about the SEC. They suponea a guy who basically goes after crooks like patrick byrnes. They go after him. Herb is basically doing the SEC's job. And its basically a witch hunt after him b/c they are looking bad. Its basically common sense stuff herb goes after. Like why was teh CEO selling his stock when he was pumping the stock. Or why was the company raising earnings when their financials are in ruins? If anything its about time to revamp the SEC, and fire the crooks there. HERB GREENBERG About my subpoena Commentary: When the SEC comes after reporters' notes E-mail | Print | | Disable live quotes By Herb Greenberg, MarketWatch Last Update: 1:08 PM ET Feb 24, 2006 (This is an update to add a dropped word in the last paragraph.) SAN DIEGO (MarketWatch) -- And to think I was foolish enough to believe I lived in America and there were these things called the First Amendment and freedom of the press. That was before I got a subpoena from the SEC recently as part of its investigation into Gradient Analytics -- a research outfit that has served and continues to serve as a valued source for this column. It appears the investigation stems from the recent publicity surrounding Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK : overstock com inc del com News , chart, profile, more Last: 23.40-0.87-3.58% 4:00pm 02/24/2006 Add to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: OSTK23.40, -0.87, -3.6%) and its controversial CEO, Patrick Byrne. The subpoena seeks "all" unpublished "communications," including emails and phone records, between me and people and organizations I've quoted -- and at least one I've never quoted -- regarding five stocks. Never mind that I have never written about one of those companies. And never mind that the other four (yes, including Overstock) deserved every word I wrote -- and then some. Dragging the press into this kind of investigation is hardly standard operating procedure for the SEC, whose job is to enforce securities laws. We're not talking national security, here. It would be one thing if I were trading stocks or options (I don't own any or short any -- never have since I started writing this column for the San Francisco Chronicle in 1988); or if I was getting paid by someone involved in these stocks (I'm not); or if I was coordinating the publication of my stories with sources (not doing that either). It's another thing, if your reputation is all you have, to get pulled into a ridiculous investigation of an alleged conspiracy imagined by a bunch of knuckleheads merely for doing what reporters are supposed to do: talk to sources. For business reporters those sources are often employees, competitors, suppliers, investors and -- oh, yes -- people who are biased and bet against companies; also known as those good-for-nothing (he said, sarcastically) short-sellers. Some of my best tips, as a stocks columnist who prefers flying red flags instead of green ones, have come from people who short shares. That's because their research is often the best. (Notice you don't see any alleged conspiracies of pump-and-dump artists whose promotions elevate stocks to unrealistic levels.) I've been a business reporter for nearly 32 years at half a dozen newspapers and two financial news websites. I value the freedom I have to do my job. That freedom lets me talk to anybody I want as often as I want -- via email, phone or in person -- in the effort to get stories. It's what reporters do without the fear that, short of a court order based on rigorous findings of some paramount, genuine and unavoidable necessity, the government can attempt to seize unpublished information. I can engage in whatever conversations and solicit whatever information I desire as long as I'm not violating the law or my own company's code of conduct. The freedom to report has provided access to information that otherwise might not have found its way to me and, ultimately, you. With tips from a variety of sources I've been able to pursue stories that have led to multiple investigations, indictments and even (for one worthy and sorry Silicon Valley CEO) jail. This isn't the first time a conspiracy between hedge funds and the press has been alleged. A few years back a company called AremisSoft even filed a lawsuit against several funds and one of my former employers, TheStreet.com (TSCM : TheStreet.com, Inc. News , chart, profile, more Last: 7.89-0.05-0.63% 4:00pm 02/24/2006 Add to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: TSCM7.89, -0.05, -0.6%) , for a series of stories I had written. The suit was dropped after AremisSoft was deemed a major fraud. Last June AremisSoft's former CEO, Roys Poyiadjis, agreed to "disgorge" about $200 million of his profits from trading AremisSoft stock to resolve the SEC's securities fraud charges against him. It was among the largest recoveries the SEC has ever obtained from an individual. But if my unpublished communications aren't safe from government eyes, then the tools of every business reporter in this country become fair game for any company that doesn't like scrutiny and chooses to play the "conspiracy" card. If that happens, sorry to say -- dear readers -- you will be on your own when it comes to policing public companies. Oh, if you're wondering, my employer, Dow Jones (DJ : dow jones & co inc com News , chart, profile, more Last: 40.20+0.93+2.37% 4:00pm 02/24/2006 Add to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: DJ40.20, +0.93, +2.4%) , and I have objected to the subpoenas. And I don't plan to be bullied into changing the way I do anything. For me, it's business as usual. Next victim, please! Herb Greenberg is senior columnist for MarketWatch, based in San Diego. He does not own stocks (except for shares of his employer), and he does not sell stocks short or invest in hedge funds.
Like a lot of arrogant journalists, Greenberg thinks he is above the law. News flash, he isn't. I wouldn't even call Greenberg a journalist. A real journalist is supposed to go out and develop stories. Most what Greenberg does seems to involve nothing more than put his name on stuff hedge fund guys who are short the stock feed him. There is a clear potential for manipulation here, and I think the SEC is right to be concerned about it. If it can go after teenagers for penny ante pump and dump schemes, why should this celebrity "journalist" be above the law?
Much ado about nothing already. http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Sto...8-a226-63bffd134a24&siteid=yhoo&dist=morenews
While perhaps this information was bad for the overall health of the market. This could have been wonderful news for technical analysis. The less information dissemnated to the public the more important volume analysis and trend analysis becomes. Basically my hypothesis is, that the slower important information leaks out the more time a trader has to analyse the footprints of the insiders and the smart money.
This is actually more common than Greenberg lets on. It happened to Dorfman and Cramer to name two that come to mind.
Greenberg doth protest too much - if he was clean as a whistle, why not PUBLICLY release everything and make the SEC et al look like fools and him an angel to the investing public? It would be a public relations coup if he walked away the total innocent who was being unfairly hounded.
He knows his reputation would be severely tarnished if Cramer's TV viewers became convinced that he was just a conduit for shorts. Actually, as distasteful as I find this guy, I don't have a problem with what he does. I agree that the public is served by disseminating as much information as possible. It does concern me that a guy calls himself a journalist, which implies a certain degree of independence and independent verification of facts. I don't know that we can make that assumption about this guy, because his whole career seems to be based on publishing tips from big time shorts. They could just publish the information themselves, like that guy Ansenio does, but then it wouldn't appear to be from an objective third party.
well the guy doesnt own any stock or any trading vehicle so you cant say he out to make a buck right. And nobody is saying what he is reporting is wrong. Byrne never said anything Herb Greenberg wrote was wrong. In fact he said everything Herb wrote was right, except he was spinning it to sound negative. Earnings misses and rising inventory, and mismangement is not spinning. In fact Byrne admits to making all of those mistakes but doesnt take any of the responsibility. He had a techno mistake that made his website not update for weeks. Thats not a mistake, thats irresponsibilty and hinging on criminal. Come on, everybody who ever uses the internet could have checked and found out that mistake.
Personally, I dont care what any of them do. But if those white house reporters could get sources to release them from secrecy agreements, I'd think Greenberg would want to show hes clean for his own credibility. His credibility is how he makes a living, right?
Greenberg is as crooked as they come. He doesn't even try to hide it. Just watch David Tepper use Greenberg's column as part of his closed end fund arbitrage strategy. Whenever Tepper has an arbitrage spread widening, Greenberg talks it down. It's like clockwork. Nothing the SEC could prove, but anyone who knows closed end funds knows what's happening. Martin