--- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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? >
Anything that contradicts her. 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/
