Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Bob who wrote (89751)	1/25/2005 1:42:40 PM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 122087

regarding the issue of ap "ratting"... i believe the emchweiller book (sorry jon if i slaughtered your name) 'scam dogs and momomammas' detailed several examples of tony ratting out people he worked with and was involved in bad deeds with, to save his own skin... even tho he actually was doing the bad deeds along with them... this was brought to light in the trial when one of the sec attorneys he used as a witnessed backed that story. ap also admitted wearing a wire to expose guards in the fed joint who were doing something wrong. i forget what. in a story ap told me the first time i met him, he explained how he'd taken his wife to the islands to meet a bad guy promoter... ap stayed with the promoter at his lavish pad and the promoter gave his wife hundred dollar bills to shop with every morning (she added that tidbit)... the promoter wanted ap to make market in his stock at i believe key west. after the delux vaca, tony said he got a few hundred thousand free shares from the guy. so what did he do? he very proudly explained how he sold the stock, shorted a pile more, called the fbi, had the guy arrested and made a pile of money on his short... he then proudly told me the guy ended up dead of a heart attack in jail awaiting trial. i was dumbfounded. my jaw literally dropped open. i ask him why he'd done that - didn't he think if he was going to short the guy's stock and try to crush him, maybe he should not have taken the guys hospitality, let his wife take hundreds of free dollars to shop on every day or accept a pile of free stock? his response. he contemplated for a second, then said "well, maybe i shouldn't have done that, but the guy's dead now so wtf, he can't come get me". when i returned from my trip i pm'd everyone i knew on si and warned them against ap. this was shortly after ap started on si around the srcm days... so, i guess the point of me telling this story. i think everything you hear about tony doing anything to rat on anybody to help himself is likley right on the money. that said. how can you read this: "he said that he'd someday employ Mr. Cramer to gnaw his lawn." and not fall over laughing? the guy was a riot..

To: SI Bob who wrote (89751)	1/25/2005 1:54:31 PM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Wow, Bob, that post was a fabulous piece of work. Personally I don't know what to think now. I am well aware that Tony is no angel but I am still in the dark as to what specific criminal acts (including which stock, which victim, etc) Tony was convicted of. If anyone can point out the details I would be very grateful. I find it impossible to assess the verdict without knowing what he was found guilty of. There's a lot of discussion here and people coming to conclusions based on the verdict, but without knowing the specific crimes it's easy to draw an incorrect conclusion. Some people seem to think he was found guilty of posting facts on Raging Bull, guilty of spearheading a group that posted facts on Raging Bull, guilty of posting rudely, guilty of shorting and then posting facts, guilty of being exploitive, guilty of pretending he was something he was not, guilty of being greedy, guilty of supporting terroris, guilty of ratting out colleagues etc etc. I would like additional clarity. Peter

To: SI Bob who wrote (89751)	1/25/2005 3:07:08 PM
From: slave	Respond to of 122087

Tony was definitely a unique individual with an extreme sense of humor.He taught many people a lot of good things,myself included.When he would call CEO,s on the phone and act like Sanja from the Bombay trading company,it was so funny i laughed until i cried,i know many here remember that..When he would call a stock a huge ,floating, deep fried ,turd encrusted with a golden brown batter with a hint of mint,it was extremely funny..My problem was when he told many of us how proud he was to wear a WIRE in the federal prison to bust people for little stupid things such as trying to date a female guard..He was a RAT, from that day forth at that exact time i lost any respect for Tony.

To: SI Bob who wrote (89751)	1/25/2005 8:11:02 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

I agree with some of your post and disagree respectfully with some. The extortion charge is the most interesting from a legal standpoint. It would be interesting to read the transcripts. The summaries that were published here seem to indicate that there are telephonic recordings. Others had posted in the past that this was not an occasional thing, that the attitude was "anything goes." It's pretty clear from the posts of those who supported him that this attitude hasn't changed for some of them. I think it would be wise not to dismiss the extortion charge out of hand as a US attorney works very diligently before bringing this type of action. The other counts are more nuance that would be difficult for the public to comprehend, but extortion is easy to understand. With respect to the historical record of who is right and how much good was done, your post simplifies the issue in a way that would prove nothing. There was an internet bubble. A large percentage of the bubble companies were either scams or hyped to death. A large percentage of penny tout promotions are scams. This group was hardly unique in making good calls. There were many others who did short and weren't gathering followers by claiming that they were right 100% of the time or more. They didn't have followers who were parroting those lines and attacking those who tried to challenge that type of activity. Don't get me wrong. I think the shorts who worked the boards here, including A@P did a great job in picking and their record speaks for itself. I personally have learned a lot from reading the DD of many posters here and drastically changed my own style of investing and analysis. However, should the gurus have ascended the throne to near deity status that was accorded them? Or was the image one that was crafted such that the followers would create a group that had more power, including the power to manipulate? The attitude, not just of A@P, but others that they could do no wrong, the way they attacked other posters, the way they attacked CEO's and their families, derided their imprisonment, or even death, ultimately was the type of attitude that led to the verdict at the trial that was just concluded. One wrong does not make a right. Irrespective of how many scam companies were featured here, there were some calls that were wrong. There were some companies that turned around. By creating a universe of intimidation, the intent may very well have been that the mere appearance of a Research Report, published on the business wires, or on a web site, including this one, was enough to create fear in longs and to get their public followers to sell after the initial positions and actions of the insiders were taken. I can remember one of the gurus bragging about how he was able to create volume. When I asked what he meant by that, i.e., was it so he could cover in the result, I was shocked to see his post removed the next day. The atmosphere of fear became an end in itself. By merely attacking, the thing was accomplished, the posting was intended to get longs to run and sell, the volume was created, the stock was tanked, irrespective of fundamentals or potential. Reverse the sides and you would be describing possibly a tout laden scam, replete with front running and fluffy PR's. SEC statutes and regulations leave lots of room for interpretation and there hasn't been a whole lot of judicial interpretation as to the issues of what is considered an analyst's report for the purpose of 10b-5 and other sections. If someone trades ahead of or with his $600/month subscribers, then has an associate prepare what may be deemed an analyst's report, and then bombards message boards, perhaps while covering his short, is that manipulative behavior? Is it different from what many of the scam busters here have rightfully accused touts of doing. (I'm not going to get into the issues of criminality here, but stick with the easier issue of manipulation.) The bottom line is that manipulation is wrong irrespective of whether it is on the long side or short side of the market. Whatever makes for a more level playing field is what should be encouraged. The creation of a cabal of followers who blindly follow and do a gurus bidding, which guru may conspire to skirt the boundaries of legality or manipulation, should not be encouraged, irrespective of how great his picks are or how scammy are the targets. This is not something that is hard to understand. Cramer, who you mention and who is quite interesting although a bit of a wind bag and overly self-impressed, clearly puts it out that he does not trade something that is mentioned in any of his media shows, at least for a period of time that is defined. The show here became a similar media happening and the verdict of the trial clearly shows that the cabal used this media to manipulate, and that win at all costs was the ultimate goal, whether it was for ego, money or a combination of both.