Last night, I posted a commentary about Roddy Boyd after reading his New York Post article on Tuesday, where he reported that the SEC, in their investigation of allegations of stock market manipulation involving research firm Gradient Analytics and hedge fund Rocker Partners, had issued a subpoena on March 10 requesting "Gradient's communications with Bethany McLean of Fortune Magazine, Jesse Eisinger of the Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth MacDonald of Forbes Magazine, former Barron's editor Cheryl Strauss Einhorn and this reporter from The Post."
Normally I would have called or emailed Boyd first, asking him to clarify his earlier statement to me saying that "I don't think I should be aligned with the anti-NSS (naked short-selling) advocates." But since he asked to be removed from all of my mailing lists, I honestly didn't think he'd answer my calls, and I knew he wouldn't respond by email. But then today, I received another phone call from Boyd, who has been inundated in (how should I put this?) "not entirely positive" emails. We spent about fifteen minutes on the phone (and another thirty minutes in a subsequent call), and I have say that Roddy was extremely upfront and forthright in his comments.
For the record, this is the gist of what he told me: "I have never been personally contacted by the SEC or anyone involved with the SEC. The very first I heard about the SEC/Gradient subpoena concerning my emails with Gradient was when I read it in the Wall Street Journal on Monday morning on my way to work. I have never spoken with anyone from Gradient about anything pertaining to any articles I've ever written. I don't buy or trade securities at all, and I have never knowingly been involved in any dissemination of information that might have been used to manipulate the price of any stock."
Of course, as I read back on my piece from yesterday, I'm still trying to find out what exactly it is I'm clarifying here. I didn't say, or even imply, that he lied about knowing whether or not the SEC was investigating him, and the date of his first phone call to me clearly predated the issuance of the SEC/Gradient subpoena. In reality, all I really said was that he seemed to be distancing himself from the advocates for stock market reform, while at the same time defending those reporters who are under investigation.
So here is Boyd's clarification of his earlier statement about "not aligning himself" with the anti-naked short selling advocates, "Quite frankly, with everything that's going on, I'm hesitant to allow myself to be aligned with either side of the issue. If the SEC goes over my email communications with Gradient, it'll only take them about five minutes to realize that there's nothing there."
So where does leave us? Does it change in any way my opinion of Boyd, or the things I said about him yesterday? I'd truly love to say something nice about Boyd here, since he was kind enough to call me directly and speak with me, and in all honesty, he's really a pretty nice guy, well, at least he was nice to me. (Actually, he called me, then emailed me an hour later, saying: "favor--could you update that site please? your blog is popular and many of your fans and partisans have very helpfully taken your initial concerns and amplified them 50x and then emailed me their inaccurate thoughts," and then called me again. Feeling the heat, Roddy?) So here it is: I was not implying, nor am I insinuating, that he is in any way involved in the SEC investigations into Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners, other than the obvious fact that his emails and contact information with Gradient have been subpoenaed from Gradient.
Having said that, here is the truth: by aligning himself, whether deliberately or not, with the likes of Eisinger, Jim Cramer, and Herb Greenberg, he has opened the door to criticism from advocates of stock market reform. In my opinion, several (if not all) of the reporters who have been subpoenaed will "go down" as this investigation plays out, and anyone who stands up in their defense will regret it before it's all over. Personally, I don't believe that Boyd is corrupt, which is more than I can say for most of these so-called reporters. Misguided? Probably. We'll see if he "sees the light" and realizes that the corruption in the stock market IS rampant, and that all we're asking for is a little honesty, integrity, and above all, transparency in our financial system.
Am I asking our readers to "lay off" of Roddy Boyd? Not a chance, as I said in my last piece (and Roddy, consider this a personal challenge to you): "It's time for the media to choose sides in this issue, and it should be a no-brainer. America is paying closer attention to this every day, and in the end, it will be obvious who stood up for 'Joe Mainstreet' and who chose the side of corruption, greed, and special interests." I am, however, asking our supporters to join me in taking the high road here, present your arguments to Mr. Boyd in a constructive, intelligent way. We're right, and our job is to convince others, in Congress, in the media, at the SEC, that we are right, to educate them, and then see who has the courage to step up and do the right thing.
Except for Cramer and Greenberg. They're a couple of pompous jerks, so they deserve anydamnthing that anyone says about them.
And that's the Faulking Truth. |