-------------------
Sign the Market Reform Petition Now!: View it here.
------------------
Herb Greenberg, arguably the most aberrational "journalist" working the hedge fund lackey beat, is cranking up the wacky meter into hyper-drive with his wild-eyed paranoid ramblings.
Incoherent reasoning (if you can call it reasoning)? You got it with the lapdog. It's a conspiracy-fest in krazeee town, and nutty is on the menu.
What am I talking about?
Well, everyone's favorite hedge fund choagie is seeing dead people again, this time on national TV.
Consider this exchange, from CNBC "Squawk Box" on Thursday, where he makes it seem that Allied is a scandal-ridden company:
Herb Greenberg, Columnist, MarketWatch.com: “Finally, we have Allied Capital which is the company that I have claimed has pretexted me. They say—well, two years later they said…we don’t, we don’t’ think you have...
But anyway, they are in the middle of a whole lot of investigations, Joe. And they just came out with their 10Q and added some new disclosure about investigations. Again....stock very strong."
Now, I have it on good authority that Allied Capital called the network to complain, which resulted in CNBC making a public retraction - if you can accept the idea that it is a retraction/correction absent any genuine remorse:
Joe Kernan, Co-Anchor:
“All right, we have a quick clarification for you…yesterday at this time, we talked with MarketWatch’s, Herb Greenberg, about several stocks—one of them being, Allied Capital.
Herb admittedly does not have any evidence, at this point, that Allied Capital or anyone associated with that company pretexted him. And Allied Capital has denied any such activities.
Normally we say MarketWatch and CNBC Contributor...this time we're just gonna go with MarketWatch."
Becky Quick, Co-Anchor: “Yeah, when we do a clarification then we’ll go ahead with that.”
So let's go through the obligatory deconstruction of this whole bit. First, note that CNBC says he lacks any proof "at this point."
"At this point, Elvis is still dead." "At this point, the earth still appears to be round, not flat."
That would be like, well, he has no evidence whatsoever, none, nada, a big goose egg. Because there is none.
Unlike my experience with Jesse Eisinger of the WSJ, wherein Jesse had "somehow" gotten NCANS bank records and cell phone records, and was showing that information off to Byrne in an interview.
That would be where there was clear evidence of pretexting by someone who then gave the confidential info to Eisinger - who presumably saw nothing wrong with getting those records, believing that they were acquired innocently...?!
And which same info apparently found its way into the mits of Carol, who was calling off the records a few hours after Jesse was pulled off the case...
See the hypocrisy at work? When I wrote SABEW about this, they turned a blind eye to the clear, unmistakable evidence, and pretended it hadn't happened. Wouldn't want their flagship members having to live up to any sort of ethical standards, or to have to answer to this sort of thing. Tut tut. Can't have that. Better to simply say I'm "anti-journalist."
Meanwhile, pro-journalist CNBC gives Herb carte blanche to spray venom and libel companies on national TV.
And why not? Who's going to stop it? Not the SEC. No, they apparently have a hands off policy when it comes to the press going after the latest short targets for some connected hedge funds with "juice."
Don't have anything real to tarnish their reputation with? Not a problem. Just invent something ugly, no proof required, as everyone knows nobody will ever sue a journalist for this sort of thing.
Unless you are Calaruso, wanting to abuse the Post's legal clout, and sue bloggers like myself.
See, that is different - wanting to silence your critics via lawsuits, exactly as you are claiming unethical companies are doing? It's OK to do that if you are the press. Not so good if you are one of those evil companies whose stock "happens" to go down once the switch has been flipped, and your name is being dragged through the mud by the same 6 or 8 "journalists." Then, if you want legal discovery of a collusive scheme to manipulate stocks, you are bad and wrong. Bad bad bad. Powerful NY newspaper wanting to crush blogger? Good. Company being victimized by miscreants and trying to get the legal system to do something about it? Bad bad bad.
So again - want to go on national TV and parade your disturbances about, making wild unsubstantiated allegations while attacking your buddy's short targets? Not a problem.
It's business as usual on CNBC, apparently, when long after the damage is done they will offer some half-hearted bromide by way of pseudo-correction/retraction.
Happy Monday, everyone. |