‘lil GW has been foaming at the mouth recently, and a buddy sent me his latest dimwitted blog for my amusement. I normally wouldn’t comment on it, but it so spectacularly poorly executed I can’t stop myself. It’s like waving a red cape in front of a bull.
Now, ‘lil GW specializes in several things, from what I can tell. First, he likes to name-call and demonize, yet he lacks the intellect to actually do so in anything but the most clumsy manner – it is frankly embarrassing to have to sit through one of his little rants, in that they invariably make preposterous and unsupported allegations and accusations, and then pepper the nonsense with insults and venom. I have yet to read anything of substance come out of his blog, and this example is nothing new – however he does seem to have a jones for the Easter Bunny and this site, and has made it a recurring theme in his shtick to hurl insults at me – which might be interesting if anyone actually read his site, but given his ratings, they don’t, thus he lacks the capability of even providing us some publicity with his frothing.
This being Easter, however, I thought I would share with everyone some examples of ‘lil GW’s heavy-handed style, and then move on to his kindred, Jeff Mathews, who is every bit as toxic, if slightly brighter and a more polished writer. Not to say particularly awe-inspiring, but at least coherent.
And sooooo….here’s a little shout out to the homies from ‘lil GW:
“Friday, April 14, 2006
The SEC's Unfinished Business
”In all the coverage of the SEC's new journalist-subpoena guidelines, including my item in this blog, nobody mentioned a lingering issue: Just how does the SEC define "journalists" and "news-gathering"?”
Yawn. Then there is more blather.Words words words. Then this:
“When the subpoena morass first arose, SEC chairman Christopher Cox told Reuters that people "masquerading as journalists" are a problem, and that the guidelines would cover just the media and nobody else.”
Uh, ‘lilGW, sweetie, morass? That was as good as you could do? A morass doesn’t arise. It is an area of low-lying, soggy ground. Or something that hinders, engulfs, or overwhelms, such as "a morass of detail." A bog. A quagmire. A metaphorical tarpit, if you will. Maybe you meant hubbub? Or controversy? Or firestorm? But morass? I am insulted reading that. Really. I actually felt a few brain cells implode.
“The problem is that stock swindlers have long posed as "journalists," such as by publishing "stock market newsletters" that are little more than stock-promotion vehicles. More recently, we have the anonymous crackpots of the anti-naked-shorting cult, some of whom are from the world of penny stocks and are well acquainted with stock-scam tactics.”
Now that is more like it – vintage ‘lil GW mudslinging with no embarrassing attempts at alliteration – and wholly lacking in any basis in fact. Bravo. Nicely done. To whit, we are crackpots, members of a cult. Never mind that FOIA requests now show irrefutable proof that there is a major naked short selling problem, or that brokers are being sued by those close enough to the clearing system to know whether the whole thing is fact or fiction – tut tut, why mention that? Because then we aren’t crackpots anymore, and this isn’t a cult – it is called knowledgeable investors armed with solid FOIA evidence showing a system run amok - and large suits being filed by attorneys who have done the research and know the difference between fantasy and reality. That doesn’t play so well with ‘lil GW’s agenda, though, so he prefers to ignore those elephants in the room, and try to paint us as kooks and crooks. Again, rather clumsy, but then again, he is no Steinbeck, is he?
”As I noted in my item last month, the "sanitycheck" website, a favorite of Overstock.com's loopy CEO Patrick Byrne, bills itself as an "independent" website that likes to say that it engages in "journalism." In fact, "sanitycheck" has as much in common with journalism as the anti-shorting "market reform" movement has in common with genuine market reform. In other words, nothing. In fact, its tactics and secrecy make it more a kind of stock market version of the Ku Klux Klan than anything else.”
He really wrote this. I’m not kidding. Maybe a little drinky drinky typey typey? Dunno. But it is pretty lowbrow, even for his audience.
Where do I start? Well, let’s see – he gets the name of the site wrong, no doubt deliberately, lest his dozen or so readers rush over here to see what all the fuss is about. He then tries to claim that this site is not independent – of course, he lacks any evidence that it isn’t precisely what I say it is – an independent site which I pay for, with no assistance from anyone. He tries to suggest it isn’t in a sort of overtly inept way that is obvious to even the most dim, so I won’t belabor it, but note that so far he has yet to cite a single fact or data point to support anything he says. This is a recurring theme with ‘lil GW. Facts? Don’t need ‘em. This is underscored by the use of rather strident hyperbole wherein he misstates our mission statement (“anti-shorting”, which we are not – we are anti-stock manipulation and naked short selling – an illegal practice that has nothing to do with legal shorting other than a similar name), and goes on to declare that our goal - to increase transparency in the markets and put an end to an illegal and manipulative practice - has nothing to do with market reform. Huh. I seeeeee. Yessss. What would market reform look like, then, I wonder? We aren’t told. But cleaning up the markets and ensuring that the 1934 Securities Exchange Act is adhered to isn’t his idea of doing it – that much is clear.
And then he proclaims my personal favorite absurdity in a paragraph filled with silliness, by claiming that this site is the equivalent of a racial hate-crime group.
Now that is unbiased, factual journalism at its best. No wonder he has such a wide audience, and is taken so seriously by so many. End market manipulation = cross burning/lynching of minorities. Got it. Very nice – subtle.
Oh, and he backhands Dr. Byrne, a financially successful CEO whose breaking of the naked short selling scandal is clearly a major step in exposing a systemic crisis that threatens our equities markets. ‘lil GW says he is “loopy.” ‘lil GW, who I think we can agree is not exactly a household name, or noted for excellence in anything I’ve come across, thinks Dr. Byrne, who has run companies for Buffet and has built Overstock into a genre-defining online retailer, is loopy. OK. Check. And that Einstein was kooky, too. What a bunch of whack jobs. Hey ‘lil GW? Babe? Maybe you can write another apologist screed proclaiming that there is no naked short selling problem, even as more suits are filed by industry heavyweights over exactly that issue being real and pervasive, and more FOIAs demonstrate that huge chunks of SHO companies trade in fakes every day? Could you get on that? Churn it out with a minimum of literary gaffs and logical blunders?
At what point do you hang your head in shame? Or do you even care that you are getting so much, so wrong, so regularly?
”"Sanitycheck" (note yet another run at misspelling it - Bobo) is run anonymously by an individual who hides behind a phony name ("Bob O'Brien") while he serves as a shill for Overstock and publishes drivel on "stock counterfeiting." One of the site's primary functions is to slander and intimidate journalists who fall afoul of Patrick Byrne and the naked-shorting cultists…”
So now we have the shocking revelation that I am anonymous (cleverly hidden under the “Who’s Bob O’Brien” section of this site), and the insistence that I shill for Overstock. How, is unknown. I mean, I would think that a competent shill would advocate buying the company’s stock or something, which I don’t do. So again, way off base. Now, given that ‘lil GW is incapable of intelligently rebutting any of the factual information at this site, or indicating what, if anything, is incorrect, he simply calls it drivel, hoping that by calling it drivel, everyone will read it and arrive at that conclusion. What, precisely, is drivellish, or drivellesque, remains unclear. Same with the slander bit – how are journalists being slandered? And why are those that oppose an illegal manipulative technique “cultists?” Sort of like all those anti-murder and anti-rape “cultists”, I guess. Again, who knows what goes on in ‘lil GW’s noggin? I can’t even begin to imagine, or care.
”The SEC needs to investigate the funding, tactics and secret ownership of "Sanitycheck" and similar sites, without being deterred by the misimpression that such phony, crackpot websites are part of the "news media." Some kind of formal guidelines defining the media (perhaps simply excluding anonymously-run sites run to push a particular "cause") are clearly needed.”
Ha ha ha ha ha. Yes. Clearly, the SEC, chartered with regulating the securities markets, should be looking into my blog, which recommends no stocks, and acts as a commentary area for breaking news involving illegal market manipulation, hedge fund misbehavior, and regulatory lapses. Why they should do so is unclear, and under what authority is unknown. But this site and the message are obviously a threat to ‘lil GW and his backers/fans – although why, nobody knows – and somebody should silence us, rather than the poor victims of persecution that ‘lil GW has decided are innocent of any wrongdoing – again, lacking any facts to support his view. At least he is consistent.
Why would a website dedicated to exposing crooked journalists, stock manipulation, clearing and settling scams, and the like, be such a threat to ‘lil GW? Who can possibly imagine an explanation? Can it be that he is somehow, well, beholden to folks that engage in those sorts of activities? Nah. I’m sure it is all innocent as it appears. Exactly as innocent as it appears.
Hey, I know, maybe the SPCA should look into me, or maybe PETA, or the NBA? Maybe a nice SLAPP suit would defend everyone ELSE’s right to free speech, and protect us all from the crackpots!
Is it just me, or at this point has he lost his mind?
”Now one might think that the SEC would know the difference between a crackpot website and a genuine online journal like, say, Slate. However, judging from its recent witch hunt against journalists, I am not so sure.”
Golly, ‘lil GW, are genuine online journals the ones that use stolen bank records and cell bills to harass bloggers that threaten to expose their hedge fund buddies? Oh no, wait, that would be the WSJ and Jesse. Huh. Would they be the ones that extort money from folks they think they can bully with ugly articles? No, that would be the NY Post’s page 6 guy. How about on-air personalities who engage in what looks suspiciously like insider trading? No, that would be our favorite gibbon. How about reporters who lie about when and how they got research reports, and who target certain hedge funds’ short picks? Ringing any bells? No?
I do love how ‘lil GW is still touting the party line that the SEC’s investigation of a stock manipulation scheme involving research reports and crooked journalists is a witch hunt. Nothing like a little KKK and witch hunt rhetoric to improve one’s credibility. I really have to hand it to him – I thought we had seen it all with Mathews’ anti-Semitism BS, but ‘lil GW manages to out-absurd that cretinism with a minimum of effort.
As I write this, I realize that any upright biped over the age of 4 who can’t see through ‘lil GW’s gibberish is likely incapable of reading, thus I am wasting my time. And it is sort of like critiquing The Gong Show or Jerry Springer; it is so bad, that anything you say about it fails to denigrate it any more than its own existence does. In that spirit, I press on to Jeff’s contribution to the NY Time's dealbook blog, which is basically a good old fashioned booty smooching of David Rocker.
I won’t go into a whole lot of detail, but it basically spends about 3000 words proclaiming Rocker as a great fellow, and compares him to other greats like his mentor Michael Steinhardt – who Jeff fails to mention was fined around $50 million for engaging in manipulation in the treasury market. Details, details. What’s a little manipulation – a few broken eggs while making a centi-million dollar omelette? The point is these are great men, whose tireless philanthropic efforts and important work short selling companies has made America safe for our children. They are great defenders of free speech (when they aren't suing posters and attempting to stifle their free speech), apparently - their own free speech, that is. And apparently the NY Times is joining the rest of the NY Financial press in proclaiming that the nation is celebrating short sellers as heroes - ignoring the recent polls that showed 89% of respondents supporting the SEC going after the journalists. And yet paragraph after paragraph of this dreck spews forth, ignoring any facts that show it to be poop, and reveling in revisionist history.
That’s about the gist of it.
As I read paragraph after fawning paragraph, I was struck by how self-serving all of this is. And how transparent.
Does anyone wonder if the whole retirement thing is nothing but a vehicle to allow the investors to pull their cash out?
My read on the way the hedge funds work is if there is a material change in the fund’s structure or management the limited partners can pull out their cash in advance of the 1 or 2 year lockups – never mind that it would probably be considered to be fraudulent conveyance if the allegations of potentially felonious activity are true. Would that be bad, to have made a bunch of money by engaging in what appear to me to be illegal acts, and then distribute that ill-gotten cash while you are being sued for those acts? Is that the investors’ money at that point, or is it the money of those you screwed with your illegal behavior? I’m not an attorney, but once a suit is in play, how does that work? Can one distribute the lion’s share of the cash, leaving a virtually empty bag should the plaintiffs prevail? Any lawyers know the answer to this?
I’m getting tired, and having to read these two is better than a fistful of valium and a half gallon of Jack Daniels to put one to sleep, so I’ll stop here. But I am curious about the legal question.
Anyone know the answer?