Funny Bunny
Looking for something a little lighter?
Catch Bob's more irreverent and amusing pieces in his Funny Bunny Blog.

The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller...

Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog    
Posted by:   bobo 2/8/2006 9:07 PM

Dr. Patrick Byrne sent TheSanityCheck an audio file of a call he received yesterday, from celebrated reporter Roddy Boyd, of the NY Post. Patrick indicated that he thought it would be interesting for the average non-CEO to have a sampling of what sort of treatment they could expect from the press should they ever build a billion dollar business, and make their telephone numbers available to the media.

In this remarkable peek into the way that the media interacts with captains of industry, Roddy is heard inquiring as to why Patrick lied to him - after declaring conversationally that Patrick is frequently dishonest on a range of heretofore undisclosed things.

Patrick’s faux pas? To answer Roddy’s question as to OSTK’s cash position directly, by telling him how much cash/cash equivalent instruments OSTK had.

Now, apparently, Roddy didn’t actually want to know what the cash position was; rather, he wanted to know what the cash position was, minus accounts payable over the next 90 days.

But best as one can make out, that isn’t what he asked for, per the message he left, and per Byrne – he asked for cash, which is what Byrne gave him.

Now, does it seem a trifle unusual for an unbiased NY reporter to be leaving messages on a CEO’s machine asking why he is a liar (in this instance) – and evincing the “unbiased” reporterly opinion that Patrick is frequently dishonest, but that his question is about this PARTICULAR lie? This, after ribbing Patrick for calling him a "compliant lackey", and noting that was probably better than what Patrick had called Bethany – although in fairness to Roddy, he does say, “if the shoe fits”.

Doesn't that seem odd? Is that the way all reporters pose questions to CEOs of large publicly traded companies, do you think? Patrick passed it on to be aired for all to wonder at, so, well, without further ado, here is the MP3 version of the audio clip.

The management of TheSanityCheck.com has no opinion as to how it is appropriate to address CEOs, whether or not the journalistic norm is to call them liars, or really anything else about this - some things just speak for themselves.

 

 

Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
Permalink  |  Trackback
Comments (29)
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By bburrell on 2/8/2006 9:54 PM
Boyd has proved himself to be completely biased in favor of the shorts. He isn't to be trusted on any level to be either fair or objective. Patrick has attracted his attention because he is the most literate and successful target of the shorts, and he must be destroyed by them.

Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By Blackbartpo8 on 2/8/2006 10:12 PM
It is pretty obvious that Roddy is looking for more than a foosball table this time. Is there any question that he is a whore for the crooks? P.S. - your audio stinks at full blast on my puter I could only hear it when I placed my ear to the speaker.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By mfairview on 2/9/2006 4:47 PM
Thanks for changing the layout. It's much better.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By Mahtma Coat on 2/9/2006 7:26 PM
You can tell Roddy works for a down-market newspaper. I really classy reporter would have verbally abused Dr. Byrne's office girls, like that jerk from Business Week (/sarcasm)
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By bobo on 2/10/2006 1:12 PM
Wireless - Fair warning was given - apparently you don't like that this is not a thread devoted to your feelings that I am fallible, or a charlatan. Again, there is a forum section for that - Doggerel. I'm not going to waste the energy posting your latest there, as it hardly moves the needle - but the message I am trying to get through to you is that we like to stay on point and relatively civil, which your latest was decidedly not. Thanks for your valuable contributions to date, which entirely conisist of telling me I am an A-hole, and pointing out that I am sometimes incorrect. Appreciate it. Has zero to do with the thread though, and is insulting, so having been warned, it is off to Doggerel you go.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By x. trapnell on 2/8/2006 10:13 PM
I find it fascinating that there seems to be a spirited competition among NYC financial journalists to be recognized as the one called a "compliant lackey" by Patrick. Not only does Boyd claim that honor for himself, but another contender, William Gabrielski, at thestreet.com, wrote "I have to admit that Patrick Byrne, the outspoken CEO of Overstock, has me second guessing my bearish stance on the stock. Forgetting for a second that Byrne referred to me as a lackey on his conference call this morning, there were some surprisingly positive bullets in its quarter."

Since, in fact, Patrick named no names, it would seem that a telling surfeit of such claimants to lackeyhood is emerging. Carole next?
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By rvac106 on 2/8/2006 10:26 PM
Well, Patrick does make himself easily available to almost anyone who wants to reach him. This would be completely unlike most other CEO's, SRO executives, or our own Elected Officials. There is almost no comeback to this, other than to deny further access, which, incidentally, IS like most other CEO's, SRO executives, and most especially, the Senior staff of our most senior Elected Official. I'm not going to go into National Politics here, but many have said that the reporters in this White House Press Corps are an embarassment to journalists outside of the White House, much as Roddy is an embarassment to the financial journalists (those not under the undue influence of the Medusa-like tentacles of Wall Street) who are actually reporting the news, not making it.

RVAC
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By rwells7722 on 2/8/2006 10:38 PM
I've been asking companies about their cash position for a very long time. I've never asked the question with the intent of getting a number that is net of payables. I don't think it is standard practice. I DO think it is standard practice to calculate those kinds of numbers myself. I also look at accrued liabilities, inventory, receivables, etc. Calling someone a liar seems to be a very risky thing unless you don't want an answer at all. Maybe it's one of those "there was no comment from Mr. Byrne, despite a request for relevant information" type of things.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By bobo on 2/8/2006 11:02 PM
Yeah, I felt that I had missed something in the exchange - I mean, calling a CEO of a publicly traded company a liar because you weren't specific in your question, if that is what happened (and it sounds like it) isn't standard decorum, I should think. Then again, Roddy could have stopped early - he would have had me at you're frequently not honest....
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By hwh on 2/9/2006 12:11 AM
Is Mr Boyd afraid of something? Was his hand in the wrong cookie jar? Was he wearing lace panties to a meeting? Oh, that was me. Dr. Byrne is the anti-thesis of a liar. Period. He is so parochial he intimidates honest men. Mr. Boyd may wish to look into other career paths for this well is running dry for him. I'm dumb, but I'm not THAT dumb. hwh
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By InTheKnow on 2/9/2006 1:14 AM
As for Roddy Boyd, the man was at the NASAA forum and he wrote NOT one word about the event. If that's not an example of his bias then I don't know what bias is!

He's a writer with an biased agenda that neither reports the truth nor seeks it!
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By mhelburn on 2/9/2006 5:02 AM
My first thought was "Who is posing as Roddy Boyd and leaving messages?"

Then I had to validate it with logic.

1. Patrick tries to be fair. He pointed fingers in a broad sweep and when confronted about it, apologized. He isn't perfect, but he was pretty certain that this was Roddy or he wouldn't have published it. He left off the phone number out of courtesy.

2. Roddy isn't reknown enough to warrant impersonation.

3. There was no motive for someone to impersonate Roddy. A telephone message is a telephone message and the content should be taken for what it is. Saying that Patrick is lying and dishonest would have perhaps cowed a dishonest person. Patrick is one of the least deceptive persons around..as evidenced by publishing what people call him.

4. I have always believed that what a person says about another tells more about the speaker than the subject.

Conclusion: If you treat people with disrespect, your words will be in cyberspace long after you are dead and gone and filed for your heirs to hear. Crow will be served to your grandchildren and it will be as fresh in 50 years as it is tonight. If Roddy apologizes, would you publish that also so that he won't go through eternity with posterity thinking he is a schmuck?

Roddy, Patrick is good person and man enough to accept your apology if you actually left that message. Are you man enough to give one? Your motives and whether you are a good person are rather up in the air right now.

Please tell me that my logic failed and some miscreant used your name. If not, please give up this adversarial attitude. We live on the same planet and it is people like Patrick who are going to make the world a better place for your children.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By AWS on 2/9/2006 6:14 AM
OK...so Mr. Boyd could have asked for Cash - Payables. Boy, Patrick - you sure got Roddy there! Fooled him into thinking that OSTK's cash position was just peachy at $112mm. The well has been sufficiently poisoned between PB and RB that there really is no grounds for kissing and making up.

That still doesn't help the owners of the business. It doesn't appear right now that OSTK will be completely strapped for cash in 2005, as many of the expenses booked should be non-cash and Q4 inventories roll off. But the situation bears watching. If Patrick thinks we all should give him the benefit of the doubt on the re-allocation of freight expense to whatever quater the accountants believe is correct, he should probably report to shareholders (at least) cash position minus 90-day payables...don't you think?

Not to Roddy...to all you shareholders.

I happen to think that OSTK is squarely in "Show Me The Money" mode right now, not with regard to net profits, but cash management. I have no qualms about the LEH Asian currency-linked notes. Just the cash (minus payables) maam.

How many millionaires do we have out there if they don't subtract their mortgage from their pile of assets?

[Why do I always get to play this part in the school play?]


Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By Patchie on 2/9/2006 6:24 AM
Mary,

It was Roddy, I recognize the voice. Roddy has become jaded over time as the pissing contest between the two grow. Roddy uses his newspaper as a medium to attack and Patrick uses his talents and opportunities to fight back. I think that Roddy is typically unaccustom to CEO's fighting back and thus is a fish out of water right now which is cause for some of these actions.

It is intelligence 101 that you never leave damaging comments in e-mail print or on a recorded phone line.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By InTheKnow on 2/9/2006 7:02 AM
Not only is Roddy Boyd an idiot for that phone call but he's a whimp! If you want to cal someone a liar tell it to their face and not with a sissy ass phone message.

What a SCHMUCK!
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By rvac106 on 2/9/2006 7:09 AM
This is interesting. The subject of this thread is a personal attack, through words (liar,) and inference (frequently dishonest,) and AWS is disregarding this, and instead, is turning the conversation to the perceived financial situation regarding OSTK. I believe that would constitute a different topic.

Patchie, you're way too kind. I'd call it 'stupidity 101.' Business 101 states never leave damaging comments anywhere the client may see them, if you ever want to do business again.

RVAC
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By media on 2/9/2006 7:19 AM
We should have a fun vote to determine the "Most Compliant Journalist". Initial nominees might include: Carol Remond / Redmond, Herb Greenberg, Roddy Boyd and Jim Cramer. We can add the ones I've missed, including corporate entities like Dateline, then once the votes are tabulated, we can run the "Most Compliant Regulator" award. I'd put the head of the senate banking committee at the top of the list.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By bobo on 2/9/2006 7:23 AM
AWS - you are going off point here, and you are smart enough to know it. The topic of this blog is not "What do you think of OSTK's fundamentals?" It is "What do you make of the Roddy Boyd phone call to Dr. Byrne?"

I don't bean to be a schoolmarm, but any topic can be hijacked - "Nuns hijacking airplanes? Why, that's almost like O'Brien hijacked the OSTK CC!"

The goal here is to stay on topic. To that end, I am removing Browntrout's comment as insulting (although I'm not sure it is real doggerel as it lacks the evil venom most good doggerel has) and asking you to not turn this into an attempt at creating a forum to discuss your sentiments as to OSTK's fundamentals.

That is a common "basher" tactic, BTW.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and buy into the notion that calling a CEO a liar because he somehow didn't read Roddy's mind as to what he REALLY wanted rather than what he asked for is appropriate in your mind. But whether you feel that OSTK is the biggest POS on the planet or the best company in the universe is off topic and will be viewed as an attempt to convert this into an "OSTK fundamentals" blog - which you can find a more appropriate audience for at Mathews' blog. Fair enough?
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By bobo on 2/9/2006 7:27 AM
Media - since when did Cramer become a journalist?

And wasn't Mann arguing that he and Seth and Greenberg were really analysts?

I tend to agree - Greenberg certainly doesn't strike me as a journalist - maybe a commentator would be a better word, although not the first one that springs to my mind...
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By Media on 2/9/2006 7:43 AM
Cramer=journalist=I was trying to be kind

I'd like to either A) be able to find proof that thestreet.com pays to be on air at CNBC (they accept a lot of paid programming and don't disclose it as paid) or B) that his callers are actors. I've heard several callers call in with different names, but the same voice.

Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By AWS on 2/9/2006 7:53 AM
Apologies. I did not deliberately intend to hijack. Please disregard my OSTK rant. I'm new to the blogosphere & conventions.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By rvac106 on 2/9/2006 10:00 AM
Re:Bobo 7:27 am this date

I actually sent this one to DJones & Co.
It didn't take.....

March 19, 2005

Dear Ms. Wolfcale,

If indeed your employees (writers, financial analysts, etc.) are subject to your DJ Code, it confuses me how you can continue to support Herb Greenberg, who writes for one of your online publications. The only way he could continue, under your own guidelines, would be if he ceased using the phrase ‘Financial’ in any of his titles, and made a statement to the effect: “I am an entertainer!”

RVAC
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By WirelessNinja on 2/9/2006 10:03 AM
LOL! Sure, attack AWS for going "off topic". He slaps down a model of how NSS could happen without nefarious activity and Bobo starts talking about how that doesn't explain the activity of journalists -- but THAT isn't off-topic. (Of course, this is the same Bobo who talks about how personal attacks are bad, then in the same paragraph likens someone to a Tourette's sufferer.)

Incidentally Bobo, that you could be childish enough to say this:

//That is a common "basher" tactic, BTW.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt //

after AWS has been unswervingly polite heretofore shows you in a bad, if true, light. You're acting like Mrs. Kravitz, just looking for something to attack with -- to attack, I might add, a person who has actual industry knowledge and is in a position to challenge your more outrageous inanities (such as, since you always complain that people don't give evidence, your "$10 billion Refco securities sold but not yet purchased = naked short selling of $10 billion" error.)

Your unwillingness to tolerate dissent (or even a slight turn off topic!) is always fascinating.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By anon on 2/9/2006 10:05 AM
Byrne never called Gabrielski a lackey or anything else.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By anon on 2/9/2006 10:09 AM
wireless,

Bob's just sick of the Matthews of the world changing the subject of FTD's to PE ratios.

The "whore deserved it" segue is the most common tactic used in print and TV whenever these criminals start flopsweating over Marin County.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By bobo on 2/9/2006 11:01 AM
Wireless Ninja - you probably aren't aware that AWS and I and a host of other civil participants are having an in depth discussion of clearing and settling in the forum. You also may not be aware that a common basher topic is to switch the subject to an off topic, in order to control the agenda - given that you have done nothing but say it is childish to point that out, with no refutation that it is untrue, I presume you are ignorant of that tactic. You also probably aren't aware that part of my role here is to expunge insulting and off topic posts to Doggerel. Yours is both off topic and insulting, and the claims within it are provably false (there is plenty of dissent, but it is on-topic dissent, as can be witnessed in the forums). I will not, however, relegate this post to Doggerel - but this is fair warning. You are sounding suspiciously like CupandSaucer, who mis-states facts with a facility rarely encountered outside of the world of professional financial industry journalists.

If you wish to continue posting, I would suggest you stick to the program of this blog - in this case, Roddy's call. If you wish to discuss my tone, or your feelings that anything I say are off topic, or your evaluation that I am a charlatan or a moron, you are welcome to do so elsewhere. I simply won't allocate bandwidth in the blog section to that stuff, forcing everyone to read it. I set up Doggerel for that sort of thing, and am more that willing to post your stuff there. If you can be civil and stay on topic, then remain here. The topic is Roddy's call.

Fair warning.

Clear enough?
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By Zockster on 2/9/2006 12:34 PM
Hey Bobo ... do you have a better version of that call? It's not audible to the human ear .... or mine.
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By bobo on 2/9/2006 12:36 PM
I do. A gain boosted rev is supposed to be uploaded within the hour, but if you like, I can email you a copy - just ping me at ncans.mgr@gmail.com
Re: The Case of the Mysterious Gentleman Caller... By InTheKnow on 2/9/2006 7:26 PM
The book "The Midas Touch" goes into the Rupert Murdock /Michael Milken connection. You know Rupert Murdock who owns the NY Post!

Why was Roddy Boyd at the NASAA forum yet did not write one iota about it?

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Please limit your comments to 500 characters. For longer comments, use our forums.
Subscribe via Email
Get This Blog via Email:


Powered by Squeet.com
Sanity Check Archive
Resources
Copyright © 2006 The Sanity Check   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use