--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > "These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious
> > consistently proved innocuous."
> 
> Note that *even if* these "innocuous" explanations are
> correct, the investigations were conducted *because*
> there was statistically significant anomalous trading.

Judy, please define for us what YOU think statistical significance
actually means.

> 
> So all your huffing and puffing about statistical
> significance was, as I pointed out repeatedly, a non
> sequitur.

No, not for the points I have been making. It is the point.
 
> And Mark Meredith finds the supposed explanations
> unconvincing, so we're back where we started when I
> first brought up the anomalies. 

Well, if mark finds it uncomnvincing, well, thats an airtught proof.
 
> If you trust the 9/11 commission, fine, then you can
> rest comfortably in the assumption that all the
> anomalies have been explained.
 
> But it's quite amusing that you're not demanding to
> see the documentation for *its* conclusions.
>
I would love to. Do you have links? 


Did you read the full quote?

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
(also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and
found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious)
trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was
all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by
parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:



"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."






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/
 



Reply via email to