Re: Cowardice and Shorty
"Yet another short seller. . . this short seller"
1. Notice the date of the Business Week in question: June 16 (yes, they do date them that far out). Remember walter anderson's warning about June 16 (I just noticed that Larry beat me by 21 minutes on this one, but I'll keep it here, anyway <G>)? Waldo knows zippo, except that his friends were planning a hit on IPMCF. We ought never forget, though, that this was good enough for 40%.
2. Nice of Business Week to provide anonymity for "short seller." I suppose we should be grateful that BW had the integrity to identify this as a story of one short's skepticism.
3. I do not want to see the SEC stick its nose in this thread or any other element of cyberspace. There are some obvious frauds that deserve their scrutiny. Walter anderson and his lilliputian friends are not "insiders" in any actionable sense of the word (notice, please, that I did not say they weren't slimey). There might be some legitimate accusation of manipulation, but this is an increasingly difficult charge to make stick.
The O'Hagen case that went to the Supreme Court (involving a Minneapolis attorney involved with Grand Met U.S.A.) and first amendment cases involving investment newsletter writers have limited the SEC's freedom to pursue insider trading cases (don't even get me going about the government's prosecution of Drexel Burnham and Michael Milken).
We tell people to look into IPMCF, check resumes, call around. Shorty tells people to look into IPMCF, check resumes, call around. We know our analysis is stronger (more recent data, more complete backgrounders on the principals). We also believe that our motives are based on a genuine interest in the long-term realization of genuine value, rather than brazenly creating trading opportunities.
Are you willing to bet your money, your reputation, your freedom that the U.S. Government is able to discern the difference?
Pý (flame -portlas > /dev/null) |
