Tuesday Morning Formal Investigation/Subpoena Watch Update:
So far there has been no comment, nor corroboration, on the story that broke here yesterday, and generated record interest. The message boards were filled with epithets and feces hurling yesterday, with truly prodigious volumes of posts, but the hard-hitting investigative NY Financial press wouldn’t touch this – either that, or, well, they couldn’t say it wasn’t true, so they elected, in the best “cone of silence” tradition, to ignore the whole thing.
All except for the bottom of the blogging barrel.
Weiss has apparently been appointed the anti-Bunny, and chimes in with this dishonesty:
"UPDATE: Feb. 14: When the "subpoena bombshell" fell flat, "O'Brien" went back to his "sources" and came up with another "scoop" -- that the SEC was investigating Rocker Partners. He didn't disclose his "source," which makes sense because it was The Street.com, which mentioned the probe a few days ago because Rocker owns a chunk of the company (see tail end of this story). To be precise, it said, "The matter is being investigated." SEC investigations are often prompted by long-short battles, with the result usually being either nothing or sanctions on the long side. The Baloney Brigade marches on."
Hey, Gary, I'm investigating Chevy trucks. Hear they're good, but I'm not sure. Probing Ford's offering as well.
Yesss. I seeeeee. Don’t be alarmed by the Formal Investigation, it’s really nothing. Subpoenas, shmapoenas, it’s usually a good thing to be the target of an SEC investigation. Just look at how good it was for Enron, or Martha Stewart, or Milken. Why, think of it as a Valentine’s Day surprise!!!
Gary apparently can't make distinctions between informal inquiries and Formal Investigations, which are only obtained for subpoena power. Further, he ignores the question: Did our friend get a subpoena, and if so, when, and further, did he tell his network and his investors?
(NOTE: Update - TheStreet.com reporter indicated in an email exchange that he did NOT know about the Formal Investigation at the point he wrote the article, so Gary is a liar, or a boob - again. Surprised? He could have emailed him or called him to check, but that is the sort of diligence that would never occur to a seasoned pro like Gary before writing a whole piece on what a dishonest fellow I am. Starting to see a pattern here? This is typical of his research - which is to say, lack of it...)
Maybe I can help Gary out here, toss him a life preserver. First, I broke that the SEC had a probe into Gradient and Rocker at least two months ago, so TheStreet isn't exactly timely in their disclosures. Second, there is a tremendous difference between when Federal marshals show up at your door, and when the SEC is "probing" something. Third, for all his heavy-weight journalistic acumen, he never found out whether my statement about the escalation to Formal Investigation status is correct, and whether a subpoena was served. Or maybe he did, but chose not to write about it. Fourth, the DTCC "subpoena bombshell" didn't fall flat, Wall Street is just pretending it didn't happen - and nobody will write about it as they are too afraid of angering the hand that feeds them. But it did happen. All of it. That's why nobody is saying I am wrong or denying it - instead, they are keeping quiet, hoping that this will all blow over.
Gary, Sweety, it's old and tired. We see what you are fumbling to accomplish. There's no art to it. First, I'm a liar. Now, apparently I'm right, but it is old news. Do you really believe the few that are reading your stuff are this dumb? I mean, for real? Or do you think that by pretending everyone that is reading your important work is that stupid, they will think, "Maybe I should believe this, as Gary thinks I'm that dumb"? Let's see if you can manage this scholarly task: Find out if I am accurate that a Formal Investigation Order was very recently issued, and further see if you can manage discovering whether a subpoena was delivered. As a bonus, maybe you can even manage to confirm the DTCC subpoena story as being accurate – you know, the one the rest of the press is ignoring? You’re a big, grown up reporter in NY, right? Surely that can’t be beyond even your clearly limited abilities? A phone call? Ring ring, ask the questions, say thank you, hang up?
No?
The problem this group has is that revisionist history works best if the events being revised didn’t happen yesterday. Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand and admire the Wall Street tradition of creating euphemisms for the most deplorable behavior, in order to desensitize the public and pretend that up is down, black is white, water is fire. Get arrested with someone’s head in your trunk, while driving a hundred, dead drunk, snorting hillbilly heroin off the breasts of a 15-year old hooker? Hey, it’s an “indiscretion.” We’ve all been there, right? Who among us isn’t human? Get caught embezzling the widows and orphans fund so you can place more wild losing bets in the market? It’s a “regrettable lapse of judgment.”
Usually there is more skill to it, as even the dimmest bulb can figure out the difference between a figure of speech (we are investigating whether to go to Tuscany or Buenos Aires for vacation) and a legal proceeding (the SEC just issued a Formal Investigation Order, in order to issue subpoenas). But I suppose I shouldn’t mock the gifts with which Weiss is forced to work – we all have our challenges.
So that is the only comment thus far – one irrelevant blogger trying to drum up some interest for his next book, bumbles the running of interference for the bad guys. I at least thought we would have Herb decrying, “It isn’t so!!!” Or Carol declaring that the SEC does this to clear the good names of those unjustly accused. Even a lowly Seth, defending the DTCC’s slapping the state regulators in the face over the subpoenas. Or even Alpert insisting that I am the incarnation of the dark one, the prince of lies, etc.
But no. Instead, all they can throw at it is an ex-BW hack trying to tout his scribblings, who is struggling desperately to convert an, “It’s all a lie” into, “Uh, it’s no big deal, really, it isn’t.”
Back in this dimension, I am still hopeful that some investigative journalist can get to the bottom of this and confirm that the Formal Investigation Order is true, and tell us whether a subpoena has been served, and if so, when, and whether investors and brokers/bankers were notified. That all seems like pretty easy-to-verify stuff, and we are all interested in the story. If anything I have said is incorrect, I definitely want to correct it and ensure that all info is accurate. All my feedback is coming back as, “This is 100% correct and accurate.” And neither Rocker not Gradient’s attorneys have contacted me to correct any of the info – you’d kinda think they’d have been all over this if it was a lie, wouldn’t you?
So come on, Wall Street, you can do better than that. Either say I’m a liar and correct my lies, or admit I’ve called this one right. One or the other. This mamby pamby, amateur night stuff is beneath you. This is a pretty direct question, so just answer the question, and lose all the invented outrage and false indignation:
Is the Easter Bunny right, or is it all a lie?
-----------
New Weiss Update: Lest anyone believe that Weiss is at all interested in being fair, yet alone exposed as a fraud, here is a message from the NFI board this afternoon, where a gentleman who sent me his correspondence with TheStreet.com's journalist posted his comment, which has been censored by Weiss, I'm sure, in the interests of advancing his noble agenda of misrepresenting just about everything related to this issue. This is directed by that gentleman to one of a crew of bashers whose sole focus has now become to attack me, and to tout Weiss' blog:
Re: When the subpoena bombshell fizzled.
by: bodinnick9271972 (51/M/Texas)
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy |
02/14/06 07:13 pm
Msg: 401131 of 401151 |
Could you ask Weiss why he didn't publish my comment on his blog wherein I advised him that thestreet.com reporter acknowledged he was not aware of the SEC upgrade to a formal investigation at the time he published his article on 2-7-06?
It was sent to him around 12 pm and I notice there was a comment published since then.
I am beginning to think he only allows comments that belittle EB.
Also, could you ask him why he allows Tony Ryals to post on his blog? |
-----------------
On another note, here is something else you won't see mentioned by any of the Wall Street lapdogs: The results of a poll from Harris Interactive, which surveyed a random cross-section of Americans, and which indicates that the majority favor penalties for naked short selling that are as severe or more severe as those for counterfeiting or fraud. Why? Well, because the average American knows fraud when they see it, regardless of how Wall Street tries to color it as something else. Here's the press release:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060213/lam117.html?.v=28
Isn't it amazing how narrow and one-sided the coverage is from the financial press? This is a pretty significant indicator of how the country feels about the issue, and yet noboody is talking. Senatory Shelby? SEC? Elected Officials? Pay attention. People are figuring this out, and you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution.