PDA

View Full Version : SEC destroyed Pre-9/11 Put Option Documents




cswake
06-15-2010, 06:06 AM
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/sec-government-destroyed-documents.html

No, I'm not part of the "Inside Job" crowd. This is disturbing nonetheless, considering that our government is destroying evidence that would incriminate more individuals who had prior knowledge of the 9/11 plot and PROFITED from it.


Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.

An extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines stock price would fall.
So the effort to track down the source of the puts was certainly quite substantial.

What were the results of the investigation?

Apparently, we'll never know.

Specifically, David Callahan - executive editor of SmartCEO - submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the SEC regarding the pre-9/11 put options.

The SEC responded:

We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.

tjeffersonsghost
06-15-2010, 06:24 AM
OP, asking questions doesn't make you a loon. Sadly when you ask questions about 9/11 you are labeled a loon. This is just more disturbing information that just doesnt pass "the smell test"

specsaregood
06-15-2010, 06:33 AM
What were the results of the investigation?

Apparently, we'll never know

Uhm, somebody hasn't read the 9/11 commission report, it is discussed therein.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf



130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly,much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence examined
by the investigation.The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept.
16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners,“Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,” May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).


Whether one believes the report or not is one thing, saying we'll never know the results of the investigation is incorrect.

cswake
06-15-2010, 06:59 AM
Nice to be around such an educated group. :)

roho76
06-15-2010, 07:02 AM
The government could tell me snow is white and I wouldn't believe them even though I know it's white. They are the kooks to me.

Fredom101
06-15-2010, 08:52 AM
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/sec-government-destroyed-documents.html

No, I'm not part of the "Inside Job" crowd. This is disturbing nonetheless, considering that our government is destroying evidence that would incriminate more individuals who had prior knowledge of the 9/11 plot and PROFITED from it.

This is some of the most important evidence there was. People are focused on the towers but that's controversial.

We know for a FACT that there were an unusual amount of put options placed on the airlines that crashed. Why? Who had foreknowledge.

9/11 was certainly not what the 9/11 commission told us it was. What happened? Those who claim the government told the truth are just as bad as those who say Bush blew up the towers.

specsaregood
06-15-2010, 08:56 AM
We know for a FACT that there were an unusual amount of put options placed on the airlines that crashed. Why? Who had foreknowledge.

Did you not read what I just posted?
The exact same entity that went short on UAL, went long on AA. IIRC, they ended up losing money if you combined the two transactions. If you had foreknowledge it would be pretty stupid to go long on AA and lose money.

RyanRSheets
06-15-2010, 09:19 AM
Did they release the names of the people who supposedly have no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda?

kahless
06-15-2010, 09:21 AM
We know for a FACT that there were an unusual amount of put options placed on the airlines that crashed. Why? Who had foreknowledge.


For me this information about the trades so close to 9/11 does raise eyebrows but on the other hand it does not surprise me that investors would be preparing for an attack. That summer prior to 9/11 everyone I know was worried about an attack and it felt long over due. You had articles about it in the news media and it had been a bitch to fly for me at times because of the Al Qaeda threats. If you go back to 1996 they closed the airspace over Olympic stadium because of Al Qaeda threats that they would hijack - crash planes into it.

I do not understand the collective amnesia that we should have been shocked about 9/11 and that they would use planes to do it. Here we are just a bunch of regular Joes that could see the hand writing on the wall in the news media that it was coming. The point is I could see on one hand why investors would pull their money but on the other the timing being so close is suspect.

specsaregood
06-15-2010, 09:27 AM
Did they release the names of the people who supposedly have no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda?

I don't believe they did. Why would they? Do you think people's financial trading activities should be public knowledge? Should your transactions be made public?

Peace&Freedom
06-15-2010, 09:38 AM
Uhm, somebody hasn't read the 9/11 commission report, it is discussed therein.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

Whether one believes the report or not is one thing, saying we'll never know the results of the investigation is incorrect.

If the results of REAL investigation are not publically known, because the commission was denied access to classified information and contacts regarding the trades beyond the private parties put out as window dressing, that means we still don't know. If you are denied the ability to investigate 90% of something, the 10% you did report on are not really 'results.'

RyanRSheets
06-15-2010, 10:21 AM
I don't believe they did. Why would they? Do you think people's financial trading activities should be public knowledge? Should your transactions be made public?

In normal cases, no, of course not. However, when 3,000 people are murdered in a massive attack and the put to call ratio coincidentally increases 6000% for American Airlines and 9000% for United Airlines in the days prior with no similar activity on other airline stocks, it certainly appears that the enemy may have leveraged the attacks for financial gain. If it didn't look that way, there wouldn't have been investigations. We need to know precisely why the put to call ratio increased so much in that specific time and we need to know who was behind the increase.

When the SEC comes back and says, "No, the trading was purely coincidental" and offers only its word as proof, it's hardly case-closed. Would you take the SEC's word for it on anything else? They certainly haven't been doing their job on the Federal Reserve and the housing meltdown scandals. I think it's reasonable to expect some evidence that isn't debatable on this matter; if you can come up with something other than names of individuals, great. Now they go and destroy any possible evidence, and we're still supposed to just take their word for it?

Jace
06-15-2010, 10:28 AM
Alex. Brown & Sons was the investment bank that put the put options on UAL right before 9/11.

A former chairman of Alex. Brown & Sons was a man named Buzzy Krongard.
In March 2001, Krongard was appointed to the CIA by George Tenet. Krongard was executive director and third highest ranking person in the CIA on 9/11.

Krongard also has strong ties to Blackwater.

specsaregood
06-15-2010, 10:33 AM
In normal cases, no, of course not. However, when 3,000 people are murdered in a massive attack and the put to call ratio coincidentally increases 6000% for American Airlines and 9000% for United Airlines in the days prior with no similar activity on other airline stocks, it certainly appears that the enemy may have leveraged the attacks for financial gain. If it didn't look that way, there wouldn't have been investigations. We need to know precisely why the put to call ratio increased so much in that specific time and we need to know who was behind the increase.

When the SEC comes back and says, "No, the trading was purely coincidental" and offers only its word as proof, it's hardly case-closed. Would you take the SEC's word for it on anything else? They certainly haven't been doing their job on the Federal Reserve and the housing meltdown scandals. I think it's reasonable to expect some evidence that isn't debatable on this matter; if you can come up with something other than names of individuals, great. Now they go and destroy any possible evidence, and we're still supposed to just take their word for it?

Like I said above, whether you believe the report or not is a different issue entirely. I'm certainly not going to defend the commission report as I had no hand in its creation. But they did release the findings.

Also, to your point above: So, lets say you are investigated for a crime by the police, but are cleared, should your records then be released the public? Are you arguing that all materials generated in a police investigation, even when the party investigated is not charged should be made public information? That seems to be what you are saying.

Jace
06-15-2010, 10:54 AM
Like I said above, whether you believe the report or not is a different issue entirely. I'm certainly not going to defend the commission report as I had no hand in its creation. But they did release the findings.

Also, to your point above: So, lets say you are investigated for a crime by the police, but are cleared, should your records then be released the public? Are you arguing that all materials generated in a police investigation, even when the party investigated is not charged should be made public information? That seems to be what you are saying.

What if you are a cop and your brother is the police chief? What then?

specsaregood
06-15-2010, 10:59 AM
//

stone
06-15-2010, 11:01 AM
It might be a "coincidence" that my neighbor is at the grocery store the same time I am. Or at the movies, but there is no such thing in nature as the "coincidences" that happened around 9/11.

If you do your own investigation and review of what is currently known about 9/11 and you actually believe that the things that happened in and around 9/11 are purely coincidence, and not foreknowledge or planning you are either childishly naive or a fool.

If you disagree, then do me this favor. Dont get emotional like a child and start spouting patriotic garbage.
Just outline for me when in the history of the world this many "coincidences" lined up. Also, dont forget to explain away the myriad unexplainable events that took place immediately before, during and after.

stone
06-15-2010, 11:05 AM
specsrgood - "should my transactions be made public"??

If they are the same as the puts before 9/11, Heck yes!!!
I think someone who is ok with getting rich off of a massacre should be identified for the civilized folks in society. Call me crazy!

specsaregood
06-15-2010, 11:07 AM
//

RyanRSheets
06-15-2010, 11:10 AM
Like I said above, whether you believe the report or not is a different issue entirely. I'm certainly not going to defend the commission report as I had no hand in its creation. But they did release the findings.

Also, to your point above: So, lets say you are investigated for a crime by the police, but are cleared, should your records then be released the public? Are you arguing that all materials generated in a police investigation, even when the party investigated is not charged should be made public information? That seems to be what you are saying.


If I somehow managed to profit from the murder of 3,000 people, someone had better prove one way or another how I managed to do it and whether or not it was a legitimate coincidence. I would come forward myself and demonstrate my innocence if I found myself accussed of something so heinous, but obviously the people who traded are afraid for one reason or another. The bottom line is that this was a crime against all of New York City and really a crime against the world, and at the very least the victims deserve an undisputed story. No, a normal criminal case shouldn't become public, but obviously they often do.

specsaregood
06-15-2010, 11:14 AM
If I somehow managed to profit from the murder of 3,000 people, someone had better prove one way or another how I managed to do it and whether or not it was a legitimate coincidence. I would come forward myself and demonstrate my innocence if I found myself accussed of something so heinous, but obviously the people who traded are afraid for one reason or another. The bottom line is that this was a crime against all of New York City and really a crime against the world, and at the very least the victims deserve an undisputed story. No, a normal criminal case shouldn't become public, but obviously they often do.

I don't see how the size of the crime makes any difference as to whether one has a right to privacy or not. What is the criteria? 1-10 people you have privacy? 10-100 maybe privacy depending on the public outrage? 1000+ you lose all rights to privacy?

If I was innocent, why would I want to go public and invite scourn and skepticism by the public? Doesn't make sense to me. I can't see how it would help me, esp. if I was innocent, did no wrong and was cleared during the course of the investigation.

stone
06-16-2010, 07:12 PM
someone needs to explain in detail the trading(not necessarily the names) related to the airlines, that went on weeks before the 9/11 event and especially the 48 hrs prior. PERIOD.
There are no coincidences. wake up!
Has anyone ever seen a timeline of that activity(airline trades)??

Jordan
06-16-2010, 08:39 PM
This forum continues to show its poor understanding of finance and investing/trading.

http://www.option-trading-guide.com/straddles.html

Buying a gazillion puts and buying common stock isn't off base at all. Happens all the time, and on all kinds of names.

stone
06-16-2010, 09:05 PM
from your post, you are definitely stating that the puts and activity on United and American airlines the day before 9/11 were normal. That is what you are saying?

Jordan
06-16-2010, 09:11 PM
from your post, you are definitely stating that the puts and activity on United and American airlines the day before 9/11 were normal. That is what you are saying?

Yes.

It is very much normal for people to short a stock via puts and long the same stock (or one in the same industry).

Example:

I could buy 100 Ford puts with expiration on July 16 with a strike price of $12 for $.75.

Then I could buy 100 shares of Ford stock for $11.55.

If before July 16 Ford rises to $12.00+ (stock price + put premium), I profit. If it falls, I have downside protection on my stock with a maximum loss of $.30 per share. Essentially, I have afforded myself a stop loss that allows me to carry paper losses maxed out at $.30 per share.

To get that same protection with just straight stock, I'd have to put in a stop loss on my common stock at $11.25 (current price minus maximum loss of $.30). If Ford drops to $10, I would have sold out at $11.25 with a stop loss, but if I use put options, I do not have to close my position and my maximum loss is $.30 regardless of how low Ford goes.

This strategy is popular for volatile stocks, stocks you think will dip heavily before advancing, or those nearing a large dividend payout, since you can hedge the price and cash in on the dividend if the premium is smaller than the dividend payout.

Jordan
06-16-2010, 09:34 PM
From the naked eye, the options activity looks perfectly normal. Things like this are done all the time.

It is a bit odd that they would've bought one airline and shorted another, but my guess is that this was either A: a risk management move or B: based on data I only wished I could get my hands on (one company taking marketshare from another, etc.)

Now, does that mean the SEC's info should have been destroyed? No.