--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm pointing out that it's > > > > > nonsensical for you to ask *me* to prove the experts > > > > > were right in thinking there were anomalies significant > > > > > enough to warrant investigation. > > > > > > > > If all you are saying inall of this is the experts thoughtthere > were > > > > anomalies significant enough to warrant investigation" fine, no > > > > disagreemnt. I have said nothing to contradict this obvious > point. > > > > > > That's all I've ever said. Why have you been arguing > > > with me if you agree? > > > > Because you have said the stock volumes have factually been shown to > > be statistically significant anomolies of normal long run trading > > patterns, yet you failed to cite any study or investigation that > > concludes that. > > Because that was the *premise* of the investigations, > not what the investigations were trying to determine. > They investigated *because* the anomalies were > statistically significant, as Mark Meredith has just > told you, and as I've been telling you all along.
Mark eyeballed it and said it was statistically significant. I have been defining such as a sigma 4 or 5 event, 4-5 standard deviations from a quarterly or annual average. Mark has yet to demonstrate that. I just graphed the data for AMR and Boeing and the trading in puts, and the stock was clearly NOT out of the ordinary over a two year view. And its quite funny, trading in calls just prior to 911 was much higher than in puts. Read the 911 commission statement I posted. (And the Snops post.) They found National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") "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 instruments 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. The SEC and 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." Which words did you not understand? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
