View_Blog
|
|
Mar
29
Written by:
mfaulk
3/29/2006 5:08 PM
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.
Tags:
10 comment(s) so far...
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
> Dear Mr. Faulk:
>
> I, too, received a "remove me from your e-mail and all other communications"
> requests after sending him a document of (what I thought was) significant
> value. I read his response to be that of fear of knowledge, like he did not
> want to know certain evidence, or have to call or write to confirm or deny the
> allegations containerd within.
>
> Ignorance is not bliss. It is ignorance. Choosing ignorance as a means to
> prevent having to take action could be laziness.
Cowardice is another possibility...hwh
>
>
By hwh on
3/30/2006 9:05 AM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
Can't claim to know Roddy well, though we've exchanged emails from time to time. From my contacts I can echo your own observations of his general niceness to a random email interlocutor. And I do admire some of his work on Refco and the NYSE. That said, I don't think he should write another word on Byrne or any issue connected to OSTK/NSS/Rocker/Gradient/Biovail etc. as I do have the sense, fairly or not, that he's sympathetic to the Rocker team.
The whole negative way he spun Byrne's law suit and the affiants involved, his treatment of the EB (true, he likely could have printed more, but ask yourself who benefitted from outing EB?), his silence concerning the Ocotober NASAA, his apparent refusal to write about the Marin decision (after claiming on the blogs that it would be good for his journalistic career if the trial went ahead), his angry accusations of Byrne having lied to him, etc.
The bottom line for me: I think in his heart Roddy knows better, but his pride has taken over, and maybe, just maybe, he owes big favors to the wrong people.
By observer on
3/30/2006 9:06 AM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
Mr. Boyd,
The bunny says that if you are not part of the solution, that you are part of the problem. So please prove that you are part of the solution by doing an indepth story concerning the "fail to deliver/naked short/market manipulation sitution," which many of us feel exists.
Thanks
By nopec2001 on
3/29/2006 8:34 PM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
I agree. I think Boyd could do all of America a great service by speaking with the people who can document the fraud that exists in all corners of the market. Why does OSTK have a 107% (and possibly higher) short position. Why can't brokers deliver certs to shareholders when requested? Why have Martha Stewart, Netflix, Global Crossing, and Krispy Kreme been on the Reg SHO list for OVER A YEAR? Why did Senator Shelby kill a scheduled Senate Banking Committee hearing into naked short selling? And on and on....
Ask the real questions, and provide America with real answers. It's that simple.
By mfaulk on
3/30/2006 9:06 AM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
Mark,
If you talk to Boyd again, would you ask him this simple question. How did he become interested in this story to begin with? I am wondering if perhaps he was led down this dark and dangerous road by one of his journalist buddies, or as the result of a conversation with a hedge fund or someone connected to a hedge fund. The idea that he should involve himself in all of the cotraversy surrounding this story, came from somewhere! Afterall, there are litterally 10,000 other reporters who are NOT writing about this. Why did Roddy decide to pursue this?
By dawgman.. on
3/30/2006 9:07 AM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
I can't remember who led him to me, but he first approached me in January of 2005, when he was a reporter for the New York Sun, here is his first email to me, from Jan 11, 2005:
Rod boyd here, reporter from the NY Sun in NYC
I am seeking to talk to mark Faulk about an article I'm writing on shorting
abuses in nasdaq small cap and especially OTCBB
Thank you--the site is informative
Rod Boyd
It's obvious that his intentions were good at that point in time. Subsequently, he wrote a few articles that were fairly positive and well-balanced, but then somewhere along the line, he began to "tow the party line," and began to (IMO) basically mimick what other mainstream financial reporters wrote. Did someone "get to him," or did he just fall into the idea that if other major financial reporters are saying it, it must be right? I couldn't answer that question, but I still maintain that he could perhaps be enlightened by "our side"....and then it's up to him to balance his stories by telling both sides.
By mfaulk on
3/30/2006 8:42 AM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
The discovery of the truth should be a prudent reporters mission. I suspect Roddy, along with many others know the truth and are unwilling to risk the wrath of the publishers, major media, & contacts on the street to bring the truth to light...hwh
By hwh on
3/30/2006 9:18 AM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
Exactly....this always goes back to who feeds who, that whole "biting the hand thata feeds you" scenario. Read Patch's piece from today about the hedge fund/media lovefest. He nails it on that one.
http://www.investigatethesec.com/20060330DP.htm
By mfaulk on
3/30/2006 8:46 PM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
From this point on; the hand that does his/her own research & homework legally within the framework of the "Act" shall as well as their company provides. The thought of a free market brings a muted euphoria.
In an informatin age and commissions not eating a significant portion of the pie, there is no reason people can not oversee their own retirement accounts.
This all applies only so far as the Government does its housecleaning and maintains its police force adequately.
So I am a dreamer...I want nothing but the best opportunity the United States has to offr for my children & grandchildren(should I be so lucky).
They will be caring for us at a ratio of nearly 1:7 when they reach their mid tthirties. Only through efficient market theory and application can they have a chance to enjoy the task they face...heh
By hwh on
3/31/2006 2:27 PM
|
Re: Roddy Boyd: The Other Side of the Story...Feeling the Heat
It all comes down to transparency....everyone (and not just those "in the know") having the same information with which to base their investment decisions, fair and impartial information, and having ENOUGH information to invest intelligently.
Right now....we have "none of the above."
By mfaulk on
4/4/2006 9:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|