The WSJ ran an editorial this morning, wherein they continue to advance a number of spurious notions – as though, by repetition, the canards will become fact.
Here’s an example:
“The subpoenas came after an online retailer, Overstock.com, accused a hedge fund and a stock-research firm of using the media to drive down the price of its stock. To put it another way, the journalists are suspected of having sources who tell them things that they then share with their readers or listeners. Where we come from this is called reporting, or providing facts to investors who can then make more informed decisions.”
Sweety. No. No no no. What is being alleged is that a collusive stock manipulation scheme is underway, wherein captive research firms write doctored research reports, which are frontrun by hedge funds, and that the whole process is facilitated by a group of lapdog reporters who aid them by carefully timing articles to hit when they will cause maximum damage.
Nobody thinks the subpoenas are about reporting.
The polls don’t. The CNBC poll taken Monday showed 89% of respondents support the SEC’s issuing of the subpoenas, and FinancialWire’s poll shows over 90% think Cox should be censured for his bumbling of the SEC subpoenas, and subsequent backpedaling.
So it isn’t about reporting. It is about colluding in a stock manipulation scheme. There is a difference. I understand it. Most Americans understand it. Why can’t you?
Here’s another example:
“It takes a difference of opinion to make a horse race, or a market in a stock, and the world of stock trading is full of positive and negative opinions about tens of thousands of companies. Had journalists made more of short-seller viewpoints on Enron in early 2001, thousands of investors and employees might have been spared a lot of pain. As long as journalists at Dow Jones are honestly reporting what they learn -- and are on nobody else's payroll -- they are doing their jobs and serving the cause of efficient financial markets.
The SEC's subpoena flurry betrays an all too eager desire to manage and control financial information. It's part of the mentality that a few years ago produced Regulation FD, which bars publicly traded companies from sharing certain information with research analysts before it is broadcast to the public. This has led to harassing enforcement actions against corporate officers who innocently drop a fact or two of positive or negative news about their company. Now the SEC scolds are harassing journalists who report market-moving facts based on their daily digging.”
Again, this isn’t about short sellers slipping a piece of info to a reporter to get them to write a negative piece. This is about collusion, with the sole purpose of the collusion to drop the price of a stock so that the manipulators can benefit.
Or how about:
“The subpoenas also reflect the bully-boy tactics that have infected the SEC enforcement staff in recent years. They've acquired the Eliot Spitzer afflatus, which is to fire off subpoenas before asking questions and assume that they have a right to see any and all emails and any other communications.
The irony here is that many financial reporters and columnists have benefited by receiving the leaks of those emails from the SEC and Mr. Spitzer's office, spun of course to make a target company look bad. These journalists are learning how it feels to be on the receiving end of such blunderbuss discovery. At least they have the First Amendment to protect them, not to mention the airwaves or barrels of ink to defend themselves publicly. The average Wall Street trader has no such recourse.”
Now, do you think, maybe, just mayyyyyybeeeeee, the SEC’s Enforcement division may have enough grounds to issue these subpoenas because there is just cause? No?
Here’s a question: Why not?
Why the automatic assumption that there is no there there?
How about yet more hyperbole-laden spin-doctoring:
“This episode also appears to have been educational for SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, who along with other Commissioners wasn't told about the subpoenas before they were issued. At least one of the subpoenas was approved by no less than the head of SEC enforcement, Linda Thomsen. That even she failed to inform her superiors is another illustration of the arrogance that has infected the SEC staff since former Chairman Bill Donaldson failed to provide any adult supervision. This disregard for the agency's appointed leaders reached an apex last year when legal staffers inserted a clause into a mutual fund rule that made it difficult for Commissioners to have a say in future litigation over the new rule.
Mr. Cox has now put the journalist subpoenas on hold, while delivering a much-need rebuke to the staff about proper procedure and overzealous enforcement. He says the Commissioners will soon consider the subpoena matter themselves, which means putting the grownups back in charge.”
Why is it that all these smart NY sophisticates can’t ask rudimentary questions? Like – Is there any requirement, anywhere, that the Enforcement division notify the Commissioners about individual subpoenas in an active investigation?
There isn’t.
Further, one could ask, why is an active investigation being interfered with by political appointees with no background or expertise in Enforcement, or investigations? Why would that be a good idea, precisely?
Huh?
Why are the political appointees who have zero expertise the “adults”, and the 10 year dedicated Enforcement chief the “child”? And why does the WSJ reporter presume this?
Here’s my favorite:
“Perhaps it's too much to ask of our brethren in the financial press that they show greater skepticism toward the leaks and accusations of the SEC staff that are their daily bread. But it's not too much to expect that Mr. Cox and his fellow Commissioners rein in their staff and return due process, rather than headlines, to the center of SEC enforcement.”
Yeah. Uh huh. So, a return to due process. Great. Would that be where the Enforcement division gets to conduct an investigation without outside interference, and being castigated and pre-judged by the press, who knows absolutely nothing about the case? Where, once the case is built, a judge and jury get to decide the merits, not some hack in NY with a clear bias?
Folks, the last few days have shown us a number of clear things. First, that there is an agenda at play. Here are the highlights of that agenda:
1) Paint an investigation into stock manipulation as bully tactics by unhinged, out-of-control fascists.
2) Presume to know what drove the subpoenas – assume that there is no basis for issuing them, or that it is some hidden agenda – but never, ever suggest that there could be good reason.
3) Make this a 1st Amendment issue, because reporters are involved (although Cramer is NOT a reporter or journalist).
4) Twist the information being sought by the subpoenas. Make it about sources, not about collusion and stock manipulation.
5) Declare that those that issued the subpoenas are out of control, and that it is far more desirable to have political appointees and the press decide how to run an investigation – anyone but those with actual experience doing so.
That about covers it.
Now in the spirit of helping this WSJ dimwit understand a few elemental truths, I have been busy with MS Paint, as always, to assist those for whom words seem to lack the ability to convey material points. First, it is obvious that there is an agenda in play, and that agenda is likely being driven by those with much to lose by the investigation going forward un-obstructed.
Second, everyone west of Riverside drive is not as dumb as a brick, and you don’t have to be an Ivy League member of the cognoscenti to understand what is at play here. The polls bear that out.
Third, investigations should not be obstructed by amateurs and apologists. They should be left to professionals. Bad guys don’t generally provide clear evidence that they have been up to no good.
They typically work in more oblique ways.
Fourth, there is a difference between an honest short seller and a stock manipulator. Just as there is a difference between a naked short seller and a legal short seller. Most understand that. The NY financial press seem determined to blur the line, as part of their agenda to confuse the two. America is not fooled – we know the difference.
So, for those of you in the press that think we are buying your twisting of the truth, and your obvious spinning of a transparent agenda, we aren't. We understand the issues. We get it. We are not morons. Stop treating us as such.
Cox was just on CNBC, and pretty much did the honorable thing, and defended his Enforcement people, and further indicated that he understands the difference between bad guy spun agenda, and fact.
So try selling it somewhere else. America isn't buying.