# Fingerprints of economic terrorism



## Carol (25 September 2008)

I read a good article this morning by Jon Nadler, Senior Analyst with Kitco Bullion Dealers about the recent short selling activities on global stock markets. Jon states that whilst last Friday's ban on short selling was a profoundly sad day for the free market system, he discovered over the weekend that there might be more to that decision than initially thought. There has been chatter on the Beltway that the markets may have been the victim of economic terrorism by way of coordinated short raids that originated in London and Dubai. While the legitimacy of this remains to be seen, Jon Nadler confirms that his source is well-respected. Additionally it makes sense as the goals of terrorism are economic destruction and social upheaval. Jon stated that breaking the capital market construct would effectively achieve both goals. Does anyone have anything to add this this?


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 September 2008)

It just gets better. Now short sellers are terrorist!!  @#%& Me...........!!!


----------



## wayneL (25 September 2008)

Yep, a load of BS.

Any raid on a company with a sound balance sheet will be met with a stampede of buyers picking up value. Can you imagine someone trying to take out BHP? Money would come from everywhere.

The only fingerprints to be found are those of the creative accountants. If ailing companies are raided, it is because they deserve it, not because of terrorism.


----------



## noirua (25 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Yep, a load of BS.
> 
> Any raid on a company with a sound balance sheet will be met with a stampede of buyers picking up value. Can you imagine someone trying to take out BHP? Money would come from everywhere.
> 
> The only fingerprints to be found are those of the creative accountants. If ailing companies are raided, it is because they deserve it, not because of terrorism.




What, what, what, next thing you will be saying is, ailing people deserve to be raided. In fact, that is what you are saying, as people own shares in these, so called, ailing companies.  They end up poorer because of the raiders and end up sadder Australians, which does not help the country.  
Shame on the raiders!


----------



## wayneL (25 September 2008)

noirua said:


> What, what, what, next thing you will be saying is, ailing people deserve to be raided. In fact, that is what you are saying, as people own shares in these, so called, ailing companies.  They end up poorer because of the raiders and end up sadder Australians, which does not help the country.
> Shame on the raiders!




Nonsense, a disgusting straw man argument.

Markets are about price discovery, they are about finding the value of the asset in question.

If a company is making a loss, and therefore destroying the real equity of the owners, the value will be discounted accordingly. The decision for shareholders is whether to hold on an see their equity destroyed further, with the hope of it being one day restored, or cutting their losses and moving on.

Harsh, but fair.

This is the same as the value of any asset. Lets say you have a vehicle worth 20k. If you drive it without oil, blow up the motor, and then crash it into a tree, you've just destroyed that value and to expect the value to remain at 20k is living in la la land. Someone might give you $500 for scrap value. This is the reality now for many companies... eg Lehmans etc.


----------



## noirua (25 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Nonsense, a disgusting straw man argument.
> 
> Markets are about price discovery, they are about finding the value of the asset in question.
> 
> ...




A car would be insured and the driver would get the $20k back again. So that is the reality. ( I do remember someone driving into a tree and killing his front seat passenger.)
So that analogy really shows what damage can be caused by raiders.

Sometimes a company, like a person, might be unwell in financial terms. Far easier to turn things round without having to spend time fighting off the raiders.

In 2003 I was in contact with a person who had set-up a company for the purpose of writing to shareholders and getting himself on the Board of Directors.  Then getting shareholders to agree certain proposals. Not long after he would resign and sell the shares.

Believe me, these people do no good.


----------



## nioka (25 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Yep, a load of BS.
> 
> Any raid on a company with a sound balance sheet will be met with a stampede of buyers picking up value. Can you imagine someone trying to take out BHP? Money would come from everywhere.
> 
> The only fingerprints to be found are those of the creative accountants. If ailing companies are raided, it is because they deserve it, not because of terrorism.




 Another entry for the wooden spoon award?????? 

There is a half truth in the economic terrorism in my view. To suggest that no company with sound fundamentals has been targeted is way off the mark.

You will no doubt ask me to name them. I will stir by thinking about answering for some time. It is up to each interested person to look at the shares they own and decide if they were targeted unfairly. I'll start by going back over the history of OZL, SBM and CFE.

 It may be hard to see the difference between economic incompetence, economic vandalism, economic terrorism and economic greed. Sometimes they are just bedfellows.


----------



## Whiskers (25 September 2008)

Carol said:


> I read a good article this morning by Jon Nadler, Senior Analyst with Kitco Bullion Dealers about the recent short selling activities on global stock markets. Jon states that whilst last Friday's ban on short selling was a profoundly sad day for the free market system, he discovered over the weekend that there might be more to that decision than initially thought. There has been chatter on the Beltway that the markets may have been the victim of economic terrorism by way of coordinated short raids that originated in London and Dubai. While the legitimacy of this remains to be seen, Jon Nadler confirms that his source is well-respected. Additionally it makes sense as the goals of terrorism are economic destruction and social upheaval. Jon stated that breaking the capital market construct would effectively achieve both goals. Does anyone have anything to add this this?




Interesting article Carol. Stranger things have happened. Afterall there are plenty of undemocratic, corrupt organisations and governments around the world. One only has to look at some of the secret activities of the US themselves in the past.

As noirua points out the counter arguement begs for a bit of logical extrapolation.

I think some of these guys must rely pretty heavily on short selling, hence their whole-hearted damnation of any crititism of any irregular market activity involving shorting, while the rest of us have a more balanced kit of tools. 

Struth, they might even be stoolies for the fundies and terrorists to try to debunk any conspiracy theories. 

Meanwhile, I'll show you below, an example of illogical extropalation, then I'm outa here cos I'll cop it left, right and centre now... but don't take their scaulding to heart... they bark a lot worse than they bite. 



wayneL said:


> If ailing companies are raided, it is because they deserve it, not because of terrorism.




Yeah?... so if a crooked executive or two fleeces and or drives a company into the ground all the rest of the employees, shareholders and public that deals with it deserves to suffer too!!! I don't think so. 

And, what bounds criminals and terrorists! Don't they Parasitise 'healthy' companies! It's a bit dumb heading for an underperforming company to try milking some cash out off.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 September 2008)

noirua said:


> A car would be insured




LOL. And where would the insurer hedge his risk!! With speculators.


----------



## wayneL (25 September 2008)

noirua said:


> A car would be insured and the driver would get the $20k back again. So that is the reality. ( I do remember someone driving into a tree and killing his front seat passenger.)
> So that analogy really shows what damage can be caused by raiders.




I knew you would mention insurance. 

Point one - Car insurance is a put option, which is available to stock investors as well. So if you're holding shyte, I suggest buying insurance.

Point two - The insurance won't pay for the motor you blew up, just the accident damage.

Point three - Once again, raiders cannot damage the value of a sound company FULL STOP. Raiders can only take advantage of value destruction perpetrated by the company themselves.

Point four - Once again, the stock market does not exist for anyone's benefit as you seem to believe. It exists solely for the exchange of equities at an agreed price, that's it. If it's less than you paid, tough cheddar. If you think that's unfair, tough. That's just the way it is, the same as any market whether property, bananas, baseball cards, or rail cars of wheat.

It is not good or bad, it is just capitalism, no matter what socialism is attempted to be inflicted upon it.

Nokia,

Yes, I will ask which companies, otherwise I think we can safely ignore you.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 September 2008)

nioka said:


> I'll start by going back over the history of OZL, SBM and CFE.




Interesting now that they aren't manipulated with evil shorts that the volume is still the same. What has changed. 

Are they still being shorted or is it that sentiment has changed. The stopping of shorts has not resulted in ANY reduction in volume.

Its really poor that punters have just taken the crud that the media have spewed out. I* mean where is the evidence*. Even the ASX has said that they have seen no reduction in volume. Just because something goes down is it because of shorts?


----------



## wayneL (25 September 2008)

Whiskers said:


> Interesting article Carol. Stranger things have happened. Afterall there are plenty of undemocratic, corrupt organisations and governments around the world. One only has to look at some of the secret activities of the US themselves in the past.
> 
> As noirua points out the counter arguement begs for a bit of logical extrapolation.
> 
> ...




*JULIA*,

Do you see the insult implied, nay, explicitly stated by these clowns?


Whiskers

If value is being destroyed by crooked execs and parasites, SELL. It will show up in the fundamentals and in the price. Easy.

I wouldn't hesitate to short it.


----------



## nioka (25 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Interesting now that they aren't manipulated with evil shorts that the volume is still the same. What has changed.
> 
> Are they still being shorted or is it that sentiment has changed. The stopping of shorts has not resulted in ANY reduction in volume.




SBM and OZL are back in green ink in my portfolio and I'm expecting CFE to do the same. Now THAT"S A CHANGE. 

And the volume is still there???. According to the short exports the volume was supposed to drop off wasn't it? Maybe the investors now have more faith.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 September 2008)

nioka said:


> And the volume is still there???. According to the short exports the volume was supposed to drop off wasn't it? Maybe the investors now have more faith.





That's my point  If they were being manipulated by a huge amount of shorts then when the shorting was banned the volume should of dropped!!

As you can see by looking at the volume of the market taking away what was meant to be a HUGE amount of evil shorts has in fact not effected the volume.

A rational person, you would think, would conclude that they never accounted for a large percentage of volume in the first place


----------



## gav (25 September 2008)

With all the media attention on shorters, this would steer away potential investors.  Maybe the stopping of shorts has given these ppl confidence to buy back in.  Or those who have been shorting and now buying and selling because they cant short?  Any of these factors could explain why there is no change in volume.

why does someone have to be irrational if they dont share the same view as you TH?


----------



## nioka (25 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> That's my point  If they were being manipulated by a huge amount of shorts then when the shorting was banned the volume should of dropped!!
> 
> As you can see by looking at the volume of the market taking away what was meant to be a HUGE amount of evil shorts has in fact not effected the volume.
> 
> A rational person, you would think, would conclude that they never accounted for a large percentage of volume in the first place



Can't agree with you there. So we will have to differ on that one. Never agreed that should happen anyway. Shorting is more about price than volume. Volume is more about confidence. No confidence leads to high volume in the same way confidence can lead to volume. Confidence is the price setter.  You can have volume either way.

Did I say there was a huge amount of shorts. It doesnt take a huge amount of targeted (evil) shorts to damage a company especially if it is associated with rumours. 

Can you deny that there were NO (evil) targeted shorts specifically designed to bring a company to it's knees. A company which may have been struggling but which was capable of trading out of trouble given a reasonable "Fair go".

Nor do I suggest all shorting was meant to be evil. However the system was there for it to allow dodgy practices. In the same way not everyone who carried a gun was an evil person but guns are banned because of the evil few.
Therefore I believe a ban on shorting was justified. All the discussion etc on this subject has not changed my mind at all.

Can you guarantee me that there can't possibly be any economic terrorism involved.?

Volume is not an overiding factor. Holders of ASX shares and brokers like as much volume as possible, regardless of price. I just like to see sufficient volume to maintain liquidity and the fundamentals maintain the price. Traders like to think they are a necessary part of the equation, I don't.


----------



## chops_a_must (25 September 2008)

Lol. Just lol.

Worthy of a motivational poster:


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 September 2008)

gav said:


> Maybe the stopping of shorts has given these ppl confidence to buy back in.



 Yes I think you are right. People are now buying. Where previously they were selling



gav said:


> Or those who have been shorting and now buying and selling because they cant short?



 Don't follow you on that one. What have they to gain in flipping. Thats my job 



nioka said:


> Traders like to think they are a necessary part of the equation, I don't.




Are we not all traders?

In any case boys come 30 odd days when its all sorted shorts will be disclosed and we will be able to but exact numbers to the manipulation.


----------



## Bushman (25 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> In any case boys come 30 odd days when its all sorted shorts will be disclosed and we will be able to but exact numbers to the manipulation.




In 30 days time the only game in town will be 'short financials' if the Fed cannot pull a rabbit out of a hat. 

I feel that pent up demand in my bones.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 September 2008)

Bushman said:


> In 30 days time the only game in town will be 'short financials' if the Fed cannot pull a rabbit out of a hat.
> 
> I feel that pent up demand in my bones.




Actually you still can short the Fins with single stock Futs and Put options. And of course you can still short the SPI.


----------



## Julia (25 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> *JULIA*,
> 
> Do you see the insult implied, nay, explicitly stated by these clowns?



Wayne, thank you for the invitation to become embroiled in this argument.
I respectfully decline.
It's not the content of the debate on either side with which I have any issue, but rather the language, viz 'morons' and other similarly insulting descriptors.

I'd also suggest - and will wear being thought old fashioned and out of style - that such mockery and derision deters many posters from expressing their opinions for fear of being similarly ridiculed.

It just seems to me that a few people have declared themselves the arbiters of all truth and knowledge.   They may well be.   But given that  many international commentators  seem similarly unable to agree on the effect of some of the recent short selling there could be room for doubt on that.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 September 2008)

And on that note..







I will then bow out............. (for now)


----------



## nioka (25 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> And on that note..
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Don't tell me we have found something we agree on. 100% even including the fine print. And this really IS the end of the story.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 September 2008)

If you liked those here is another one very appropriate to the current situation.


----------



## xoa (25 September 2008)

Those who depend on the asset bubble call short selling terrorism. I call it capitalism.

If there was any economic terrorism, it was perpetrated by those who foisted a tsunami of artificially cheap credit upon the world.


----------



## nomore4s (25 September 2008)

lol that's gold TH

Maybe the terrorists were involved in this economic meltdown by putting sleeper cells in these Wall St firms and systematically destroying the world  economy by devising these creative financial engineering schemes.

And imagine how much money they would have raked in with all the outrageous bonuses they would have got paid for doing it. Would've built a nice warchest for themselves.

<tongue firmly in cheek>

In all seriousness though, the terrorists must be sitting back and laughing at the Western world destroying itself through greed & stupidity.


----------



## ZzzzDad (25 September 2008)

There are people out to manipulate the system and cause panic.  Take George Soros' actions back during the Asian financial crisis, and his attempt to break the British pound.

He is still very active today, making over two billion for himself last year.

It would be interesting to know what he is up to at the moment.


----------



## Whiskers (25 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Wayne, thank you for the invitation to become embroiled in this argument.
> I respectfully decline.








Trembling Hand said:


> And on that note..




Grrr

:


----------



## cuttlefish (25 September 2008)

Maybe the terrorists have implanted a stupidity chromosome in financial journalists.


I was wondering how long it would take America to figure out a way to justify bombing somebody.  (America's solution to any problem).


----------



## Julia (25 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> And on that note..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gorgeous photos, TH.
Captions are pretty agreeable too.


----------



## wayneL (25 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Wayne, thank you for the invitation to become embroiled in this argument.
> I respectfully decline.
> It's not the content of the debate on either side with which I have any issue, but rather the language, viz 'morons' and other similarly insulting descriptors.
> 
> ...



Julia, that's fine. 

So long as there is recognition that aspersions have been cast from both sides of the debate.


----------



## Julia (25 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Julia, that's fine.
> 
> So long as there is recognition that aspersions have been cast from both sides of the debate.



Yep.  No doubt about that. And undoubtedly some contributors have taken up their positions as a sport or, umm, mental exercise. 
I'll not let go of my plea for less abusive language, though.  Here endeth my contribution.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 September 2008)

I like the cat photo. Cats are cool little creatures.


----------



## noirua (26 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> I knew you would mention insurance.
> 
> Point one - Car insurance is a put option, which is available to stock investors as well. So if you're holding shyte, I suggest buying insurance.
> 
> ...




Car insurance is a legal requirement. No options, you could say.
Hopefully the car damage will be so extensive the lack of oil would not be able to be identified as a factor.
Raiders are like wood lice, they take time to infect and then gradually finish off their victim.
Quite right, the stock exchange is principally for the exchange of equities. Just like a road is principally for cars and sometimes a few maniacs who I would describe as bear raiders.


----------



## noirua (26 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> I knew you would mention insurance.
> 
> Point one - Car insurance is a put option, which is available to stock investors as well. So if you're holding shyte, I suggest buying insurance.
> 
> ...




Car insurance is a legal requirement. No option, you could say.
Hopefully the car damage will be so extensive the lack of oil would not be able to be identified as a factor. Anyway, it would not be the drivers fault if the oil seal went, you see.
Raiders are like wood lice, they take time to infect and then gradually finish off their victim.
Quite right, the stock exchange is principally for the exchange of equities. Just like a road is principally for cars and sometimes a few maniacs who I would describe as bear raiders.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2008)

noirua said:


> Raiders are like wood lice, they take time to infect and then gradually finish off their victim.



I would like to see some proof of this assertion.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 September 2008)

nioka said:


> Don't tell me we have found something we agree on. 100% even including the fine print. And this really IS the end of the story.




Interesting you happen to agree you are wrong. :


----------



## wayneL (27 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> I would like to see some proof of this assertion.



Interesting also, that no proof was forthcoming for this one.


----------

