Parker...
We don't need all this conspiracy BS brought up again.
Seen it all before.
See ' Was 9/11 state sponsored' for answers about who was shorting airline stocks
Stocks were being traded on any given day? What are the odds? Two French film makers happened to be shooting a do entary about firemen that day. That was obviously a false flag operation.
Extraordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.
I see a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo that glosses over the weaknesses in the analysis, and a decided lack of an attempt to find alternative explanations.
Let's take the blinders off for a second and look around at the economic environment of August 2001.
www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/mobu/mb200108en.pdf
The Fed Chairman's testimony before Congress in July 2001 referenced in the above report also was widely taken as expressing some doubts as to economic growth later in the year.
Since oil is one of the larger variable components of airline expenses, one should look at what was happening in oil.
Table 2 of that report then goes on to note a pretty marked uptick in the cost of oil.
For reference it should be noted that the price of a barrel of oil jumped about 60% from 1999-2000, and although it remained fairly flat, there was some grumbling about the continued run-up, coupled with some economic uncertainty.
http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm
Basically all the economic data indicated a likely slowdown. OPEC, well aware of this was getting ready to cut supply.
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_...OMR_082001.pdf
Putting in an option on an airline, betting on it going down, in such an environment seems to be a pretty damn good play.
If the economy doesn't tank, then oil continues going up, putting pressure on airline expenses.
If the economy does tank, OPEC acts to keep the price of oil stable, so the airlines get hit with a slowdown in revenues, but no breaks in their biggest variable cost.
So... some studies were done that no one bothered to refute, so that means they are good?Concluding Recommendations
•United and American ought not be recognized as direct insider trading. Nevertheless, by themselves, they convey little of the larger question.
•Ken Breen, Department of Justice, reported to the Commission in another interview released in 2009 that, for put-options on indexes, “the volume is so great that analysis proved impossible”. Therefore, Wong’s result regarding the S&P 500 is not contested in the background reports to the 9/11 Commission, despite what the Commission asserted. This fact needs to be asserted.
•To the best of my knowledge, none of the three econometric methodologies and results has been contested in the professional literature. Typically, controversial results generate opposition. We have attempted to convey enough of three separate methodologies to be convincing that they are solid scientific works. Therefore, accept the econometric research results as meritorious.
•Demand that the SEC publicly report the details of its findings on Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Delta, and S&P 500 index put-option trading before September 11th. This reporting should be at least as detailed as that already released for American and United.
•Add to that demand of the SEC any additional corporations exhibiting evidence of insider trading before September 11th, e.g., in the expanded material Chesney, et al., plan to release shortly.
In addition:
•Promote an independent investigation into the events of September 11th, inclusive of subpoena powers, that includes investigations of put-option purchasing.
•Incorporate into that independent investigation the financial issues we have cited, but not examined, in our introduction, most of them having billions of dollars at stake.
And
Neither the trading in American or United show direct insider trading.
That is what the whole article says!?
"We need everybody to spend tens of millions of dollars to refute/prove our conspiracy theories".
Jusus H. Jumped-up Christ, can we give it a ing rest?
You didn't get the smoking gun you just *know* is there, because you know they did it, so you are going to throw temper tantrums for the rest of your lives because no one thinks enough of your evidence to merit spending time/money on it?
Boo- ing hoo, life sucks, get a helmet. This is weak, and I am tired of the whining about it.
Oh boy. Another thread about controlled demolition.
Over reach much? You bash parker for posting an article with hypotheticals that has not been peer reveiwed and then you do the same thing to promote your theorySince oil is one of the larger variable components of airline expenses, one should look at what was happening in oil.
Yes, nothing but what's detailed in the 9/11 Commission report can ever be trueOh boy. Another thread about controlled demolition.
(group think)
Can conspiracy theorists also be prone to groupthink, dan?
You talking about overreach? That's rich.Over reach much? You bash parker for posting an article with hypotheticals that has not been peer reveiwed and then you do the same thing to promote your theory
Oddly enough one of my assignments for a class was to analyze three different major airline annual reports and explain the variance in their overall performances, i.e. one was profitable, one broke even, and one lost a ton of money.
I read through the companies' balance sheets, presentations to the stock holders and news/interviews with the CEO's and whatever else I could find.
At the end of it I wrote a fairly long paper.
The primary difference between the carriers at a time of rising fuel prices, was... how much they hedged against rising fuel prices by locking in a price.
The one that did the most hedging made the most money, the one that didn't hedge, lost the most.
When one reads industry analysis for airlines and other transportation stocks, it comes down to fuel, fuel, fuel.
It is only a theory though, to explain the uptick on options.
That theory competes against your "big evil conspiracy", so you instantly dislike it despite the fact that it is probably a better fit than the statistical paper you dimly understand, and probably didn't bother reading.
Strawman much?Yes, nothing but what's detailed in the 9/11 Commission report can ever be true
(group think)
A theory must have some basis on facts, what you have is a hypothesis....all you have are hypothesis...all Parker has are hypothesis...why do you have to try and demean everyone who does not believe exactly like you do? ....control issues much?It is only a theory though, to explain the uptick on options.
That theory competes against your "big evil conspiracy", so you instantly dislike it despite the fact that it is probably a better fit than the statistical paper you dimly understand, and probably didn't bother reading.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
