LP, so you think Bloomberg is lying about the mass surge in Put volume?
That article wasn't written by Bloomberg. Nor did it contain link to any Bloomberg, various option exchange, or SEC statements, data, or other information supporting that claim. All I see is an article that reads more like an editorial purporting that options numbers were far above average in the week before the terrorist attacks. That, too, on a website whose "news" - again, more like op-ed pieces - doesn't seem particularly balanced.
Is it possible that the terrorists were speculating before the attacks? It's possible. Is it likely? At this point I don't think so, mostly because (a) equity and option order audit trail and surveillance is extensive on an ongoing, real time basis - especially in vanilla equity options - and (b) if there was such a link, it'd been discovered by now. It's been over a year: more than enough time to scrub the data and follow the transactions to their electronic origin and/or brokerage account, so I think that any such connection would have been discovered and revealed at this point.
In fact, I do recall one of the regulators saying that volume and clustering of options volume going toward 9/11/2001 was inconclusive. What's your theory for why they'd lie? (Should I not be drinking hot tea when you answer?)
I never thought even you would stoop so low as to support the terrorists. Is that what you are doing or is it just another one of your BS attacks?
If my "attacks" were "BS," you'd have been able to answer even half the questions I've posed to you in the past. Instead, you either opted not to or feigned indifference, suddenly and noticeably as you continued to post your retail, piker pablum. Some recent examples of your ongoing feud with reality and chokehold on amateurism include the following:
Message 18024957
Message 18039259
Message 18045796
If anyone, it is you who "supports" terrorism by - in the classic, telltale style of the late nineties equities hobbyist - focusing intently on the small picture and, on a greater political scale, continuing to lobby for regulatory paternalism in lieu of personal responsibility. I am thankful that you and your brethren...the pennywise pound foolish type...do so with such utter hamhandedness that laughter is the only likely response.
Notwithstanding the fact that (a) I find most of the "evidence" you cite hilarious, and (b) I'm personally quite sure that terrorist trading would have been uncovered by now: I personally care less about trades made in advance of the attacks and more about the big picture; building a coalition, ending years of appeasement, broadening trade relations, and simultaneously bombing both terrorist nations and those that support them back into the stone age. Which, in most cases, is about two weeks.
I was at the WTC on Sept 11th, 2001, and lost a friend and a large number of colleagues there. I ran in an event this morning, in fact, in honor of New York's Bravest.
www.tunneltotowers.org
Option transactions of any size or volume don't irk me nearly as much as the fact that we remain vulnerable to attack and some of the perpetrators of 9/11, the bombing of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, and the US embassies in Africa remain at large.
Did you research it or just decide to shoot off your mouth again, as always?
You call
www.globalresearch.ca
"research"? LOL. You would. Just because you can understand it doesn't make it credible or an authoritative source. (Quite the contrary, actually.)
LPS5 |
