Gary Weiss' latest blog entry is entirely forgettable and banal, except to underscore how intellectually dishonest and dependent upon information control some of the naked short selling apologists are. I'll repeat it here, and then offer a few brief comments - most of the intellectual dishonesty and plain silliness are self-evident, as Gary prattles on about a topic he clearly knows little about (and for which his positions lack any supporting facts or data) in an effort to be as inflammatory as possible.
----------------
UPDATE ON READER COMMENTS: So far I've received quite a few comments. I let a few through, but have had to spike most of them because they were repetitive, slanderous, sick.... well, I think this sums it up:
(Photo of baloney)
.... and I am running neither a delicatessen nor a mental institution. Sorry, boys. Take your talk therapy and crackpot theories elsewhere. I've had my quota of baloney for the time being.
I have a theory as to what is at work here.
Some of these Baloney Brigade foot soldiers apparently are confusing this blog with an SEC rulemaking that they can flood with their tired, stale, incoherent and nonsensical arguments.
The theory appears to be that if they vomit out enough spam, they can bulldoze their way past the usual barriers of common sense. Unfortunately, it worked at the SEC, which was browbeaten by these idiots into passing Reg. SHO despite a near-total absence of any "naked short-selling problem."
But since Reg. SHO didn't carry out the objective of the Baloney Brigade, which is to raise the share prices of crappy companies, la lucha continua and the Baloney Blitzkrieg is marching on. Hence the spam and the craziness and the baloney."
----------------
Now, he shares with Jeff Mathews and many of the other apologists a number of obvious similarities. First, he is quick to call any argument which shows his to be specious "crackpot theories" and states that those that hold them are mentally ill, and idiots, etc. – so a lot of name calling without any substance, the sure sign of an arrogant empty suit being challenged by data and facts he is uncomfortable with – as well he should be.
So let's examine the Gary Weiss thing as a microcosm of the pseudo controversy that the naked short selling apologists are attempting to create (pseudo because there is much factual info on their side as there is for the holocaust denial movement) - on the anti-naked short selling side of the fence, we have the FOIA requests showing hundreds of millions or billions of FTDs. We have the SEC stating in the own materials that they were forced to grandfather FTDs due to large pre-existing positions, and were afraid of causing volatility - 1929-style volatility, not stocks-going-up-a-few-bucks volatility. We have the SEC also acknowledging that illegal naked short selling is stock manipulation and could have a substantial depressive effect on the PPS of a stock. We have some of the top academics in the country stating on the record that there is a problem, that it is real, and that the lack of transparency in the system that protects the rule violators is an impediment to fair markets. We have Dr. Byrne failing to receive any of the shares he bought in the open market for months. We have bankruptcy trustees suing hedge funds for destroying companies using naked short selling. We have the SEC keeping all data secret because it is afraid of damaging Wall Street’s trading practices.
And we have the incredibly obvious: Advertising something for sale, taking money for it, and not delivering it, is fraud. Simple fraud. Nothing complicated or crackpot to it.
On Gary's side of the aisle, we have Gary saying that all of this is crackpot conspiracy theories, with no support for his contention other than his limited skill in creating coherent sentences.
Huh.
How embarrassing is it when transparent and obvious hedge fund shill Jeff Mathews writes better than you, and your only claim to fame is as a writer?
Anyhow, he dismisses his critics as slanderous, sick, repetitive - but wait, we can look at my previous blog and find ample evidence that is not true. He is simply censoring comments that show him to be a loudmouthed dolt, hoping that there will be no mechanism by which Gary's tired and simplistic arguments, such as they are, can be debunked - he, like the DTCC, is hoping that he can simply say "it's all in your head" and the reader will take his word for it.
Take, for instance, his assertion that there was no naked short selling problem, and that the SEC passed SHO to shut some crazies up.
Then contrast that with the FOIAs and the SEC's own admission of large, pre-existing naked short positions, of enough severity to justify grandfathering.
I could go on, but why waste the time or the energy? This is marginally interesting due to the 15 minutes of fame Weiss is attempting to drum up for his next literary offering, but frankly if I were he, I would have kept my mouth shut. Who wants to read the “work” of a guy who has to ignore virtually all available data just to cobble together a theory for his book? I mean, is that even interesting? To anyone?
“There is no such thing as AIDS – it is all a scheme by pharmaceutical companies to poison you with their billion dollar toxins.”
“There was no holocaust – it is all a Zionist plot to excuse a land grab and drum up pity.”
“There are WMD in Iraq, and they can be mobilized to destroy America in 45 minutes – and some are nuclear.”
“WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”
“There is no naked short selling problem – anyone that says so is a nut, and we shouldn’t have to see the data to know it – taking money and not delivering product is good, we should make it legal.”
I would propose that since Mr. Weiss is so reticent to see his limited following’s comments memorialized, that anyone wishing to comment on his important work do so here – for the next 24 hours this will become the official Weiss comment forum, where you can post the comments he finds too difficult to have on his blog. I already started – my only caveat is that you have to submit the comment to him as well. And no silly ad hominem or name calling – we will leave that to Mr. Weiss.
So much for intellectual honesty…