# Government destroys documents on 9/11 put-options - a smoking gun for an inside job?



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2010)

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/sec-government-destroyed-documents-regarding-pre-911-put-options

So, an FIOA is filed on the 9/11 put options on United and American and the SEC announces that they government destroyed them.  These put-options tie back to a Baltimore based financial firm that has direct ties to the CIA through it's CEO.  There is NO WAY that this level of put-options could have been put on these particular airlines as random trading activity.  In fact, the SEC looks at levels FAR LESS then this in order to charge people with insider trading.  Insider trading, in this case, would mean that a CIA tied financial firm at least had foreknowledge of the attacks...and the information detailing the trades was destroyed by the government.  It was not classified and locked up somewhere, it was DESTROYED, which is a crime all by itself.

What do you think?  Was this a smoking gun that showed that some elements within the government at least had foreknowledge of the attacks?  Is this a smoking gun?  Or does this simply show that some unscrupulous individuals decided to make a profit off an event that killed 3000 American citizens?

One of the rebuttals I've read against foreknowledge is that these trades were backdated (a crime) and that the profits collected were purely fraudulent.  The problem with this line argument is that the money for the trades was already piled up in accounts post-9/11 after the stock exchange was closed.  No body could collect it.  The money in the accounts is how people first because aware of the put-options.  

Anyway, may we all live in interesting times...


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> http://www.zerohedge.com/article/sec-government-destroyed-documents-regarding-pre-911-put-options
> 
> So, an FIOA is filed on the 9/11 put options on United and American and the SEC announces that they government destroyed them. These put-options tie back to a Baltimore based financial firm that has direct ties to the CIA through it's CEO. There is NO WAY that this level of put-options could have been put on these particular airlines as random trading activity. In fact, the SEC looks at levels FAR LESS then this in order to charge people with insider trading. Insider trading, in this case, would mean that a CIA tied financial firm at least had foreknowledge of the attacks...and the information detailing the trades was destroyed by the government. It was not classified and locked up somewhere,* it was DESTROYED, which is a crime all by itself.*
> 
> ...


 
How long are firms obligated to keep records?

In Canada it's 7 years, after which all financial records may be destroyed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> How long are firms obligated to keep records?
> 
> In Canada it's 7 years, after which all financial records may be destroyed.



These were not private records.  From the article, these were SEC (government) records.



> 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:This  letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of  the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the  September 11 (9/11) Commission Report.
> 
> ...


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> These were not private records. From the article, these were SEC (government) records.


 
Same question applies. How long does the SEC have to keep records?


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm sure there's a perfectly fnord reasonable explanation for all of this.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Same question applies. How long does the SEC have to keep records?



You aren't allowed to destroy these.  The SEC has records that go back to it's inception.  These are part of the public record.  This doesn't mean that some aren't "mistakenly" destroyed.  That happens particularly when their is a scandalous event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 22, 2010)

Lots of people knew 9/11 was going to happen.  Namely, the people/organization who did it knew.  Also, a French arm knew about it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/16/world/main2689205.shtml

I wouldn't be surprised if the government destroyed the documents to get rid of evidence showing they knew about the attacks enough to have stopped them yet did nothing.  It also wouldn't surprise me too much if it was an inside job.  However, it was likely al qaeda operatives that participated in the stock job and our pathetic government trying to cover it's *** over being stupid.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> You aren't allowed to destroy these. The SEC has records that go back to it's inception. These are part of the public record. This doesn't mean that some aren't "mistakenly" destroyed. That happens particularly when their is a scandalous event.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission


 

I see no evidence that the SEC keeps records of transactions. They keep quaterly and annual filings, as well as MD&A.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I see *no evidence* that the SEC keeps records of transactions.



http://maxkeiser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FOIAresponseGIF1.gif

They admitted they destroyed their own records.  These were records pertaining to controversial put-options on airlines where people profited from the 9/11 attacks, records that indicated foreknowledge of the attacks by the party who made them, records that tie directly to the CIA through the deputy director at the time under Director George Tenet.

The SEC is a  public institution that keeps public records.  Destroying those documents is criminal.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 22, 2010)

If it was a real conspiracy, then you would never know that the records were destroyed. What type of amateur conspirators announce that they have done anything?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> If it was a real conspiracy, then you would never know that the records were destroyed. What type of amateur conspirators announce that they have done anything?



If that were true, then there would be no crime, because real criminals would never leave evidence behind that they did anything.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> http://maxkeiser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FOIAresponseGIF1.gif
> 
> They admitted they destroyed their own records. These were records pertaining to controversial put-options on airlines where people profited from the 9/11 attacks, records that indicated foreknowledge of the attacks by the party who made them, records that tie directly to the CIA through the deputy director at the time under Director George Tenet.
> 
> The SEC is a public institution that keeps public records. Destroying those documents is criminal.


 

First, that letter does not even give a hint that SEC maintains detailed transaction records, let alone that they must keep them forever. That type of details is maintained by the corporations, and can be destroyed after 7 years. It speaks to copies of transactions used to produce a report, judging by the date of the response, at least 7 years after said report was produced. I see no evidence of a conspiracy, simply of regular records retention policy. It makes sense that the regulatory agency destroys records at the same schedule it enforces.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> First, that letter does not even give a hint that SEC maintains detailed transaction records, let alone that they must keep them forever. That type of details is maintained by the corporations, and can be destroyed after 7 years. It speaks to copies of transactions used to produce a report, judging by the date of the response, at least 7 years after said report was produced. I see no evidence of a conspiracy, simply of regular records retention policy. It makes sense that the regulatory agency destroys records at the same schedule it enforces.



That makes no sense whatsoever.  The financial world didn't just cease to exist seven years ago and neither did the word fraud just appear in 2003.  You can file FIOA requests on SEC documents prior to 2003 any time you wish.  Lawyers do this in order to check the financial health of various firms or to check for past fraud.

Also, the letter clearly states, "...we conducted a thorough search of the Commission's various systems of records..."  How can you say that the letter does not even hint that the SEC maintained detailed transaction records?  Did you miss this when you read it?

Like I stated above, the SEC is not a corporation, they are a public institution and any forms submitted to them become part of the public record.  Destroying forms in the public record is a crime.

Since this was done in secret and it involved more then one person, it's a conspiracy.  It's that simple, braddah.  No evidence, eh?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2010)

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm

Looks like you can search the records all of the way back to 1934.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 23, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> First, that letter does not even give a hint that SEC maintains detailed transaction records, let alone that they must keep them forever. That type of details is maintained by the corporations, and can be destroyed after 7 years. It speaks to copies of transactions used to produce a report, judging by the date of the response, at least 7 years after said report was produced. I see no evidence of a conspiracy, simply of regular records retention policy. It makes sense that the regulatory agency destroys records at the same schedule it enforces.



In regulated environments, the opposite is true actually. You want to make sure that you keep everything and anything you are required to retain for the mandated number of years. And after that you make sure that everything and anything older than that is purged irreversibly.

The latter may be surprising, but there are several reasons why you would do this. A legal one would be liability. Since it could be used as proof of wrongdoing, you get rid of it as soon as the law says you can. another reason would be that if you keep some data longer than required, it might raise questions why you don't retain the other data. Yet another reason is practicality: storing data and making sure that it is retrievable costs time, money, and space. Regulated environments need to retain a ton of data. This costs a lot of money.

Now, in the case of the SEC, it is a regulated environment, so I would be hard pressed to believe that they don't operate under the same protocols: keep data as long as required, but not any longer. Also note that different data can have different retention limits. Some data needs to be kept indefinitely, other data up to x years after the release of a batch to market, and other data y years after manufacturing.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 23, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Destroying forms in the public record is a crime.


 
Not arguing about whether what they did was wrong or a crime or not, just wanted to address this point.

Destroying public records is not a crime necessarily.  I actually just had this discussion in a class that I took.  Most municipalities, counties, states, and federal agencies have what is called a "document retention policy".  Now, I don't know what the Federal governments policy is for its various agencies, but I do know that destroying document is not necessarily a crime just because it is a public record.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not arguing about whether what they did was wrong or a crime or not, just wanted to address this point.
> 
> Destroying public records is not a crime necessarily.  I actually just had this discussion in a class that I took.  Most municipalities, counties, states, and federal agencies have what is called a "document retention policy".  Now, I don't know what the Federal governments policy is for its various agencies, but I do know that destroying document is not necessarily a crime just because it is a public record.



From the link I provided, it would seem that everything back to the inception of the SEC is available search.  Whether one does it from a FOIA or uses the search engine they provide, it appears that it all comprises a complete public record of SEC documentation.  Considering the charter of the SEC I posted earlier, this makes sense.  So, yeah, you can destroy certain kinds of public docs, not all types and not these types.  

I don't know who is going to investigate this.  Can the Fed be trusted to investigate itself and to find the individuals who apparently had foreknowledge of the attacks and traded on that knowledge?  Would you consider it treason for people in the Fed to NOT do anything about the attacks AND cynically adjust one's stock portfolio in order to profit from them?  My gut feeling on this is that the names of the people who made these trades will lead to a surprising shadowy network of people who are responsible for much more then people expect.  

The financial firm in question links directly back to the CIA, directly to the top of the agency in fact.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> From the link I provided, it would seem that everything back to the inception of the SEC is available search. Whether one does it from a FOIA or uses the search engine they provide, it appears that it all comprises a complete public record of SEC documentation. Considering the charter of the SEC I posted earlier, this makes sense. So, yeah, you can destroy certain kinds of public docs, not all types and not these types.
> 
> I don't know who is going to investigate this. Can the Fed be trusted to investigate itself and to find the individuals who apparently had foreknowledge of the attacks and traded on that knowledge? Would you consider it treason for people in the Fed to NOT do anything about the attacks AND cynically adjust one's stock portfolio in order to profit from them? My gut feeling on this is that the names of the people who made these trades will lead to a surprising shadowy network of people who are responsible for much more then people expect.
> 
> The financial firm in question links directly back to the CIA, directly to the top of the agency in fact.


 

SEC keeps filings back to it's inception. You can get quaterly and annual reports as well as MD&A. 

What it does not keep is details of transactions. The corporations do that. And are allowed to destroy those after 7 years. 

That FOIA request was for copies of transaction details contained in a report. Since it is not what the SEC is mandated to keep, it is quite feasible that it falls under a document retention policy.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 23, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> SEC keeps filings back to it's inception. You can get quaterly and annual reports as well as MD&A.
> 
> What it does not keep is details of transactions. The corporations do that. And are allowed to destroy those after 7 years.
> 
> That FOIA request was for copies of transaction details contained in a report. Since it is not what the SEC is mandated to keep, it is quite feasible that it falls under a document retention policy.



And just to hammer this point home again: if the retention policy says 'destroy after 7 years', then it gets detroyed no matter what it is.

You are really not allowed to say _'hm this might be interesting to the conspiracy nuts, I'll just keep a copy just in case'_. It gets destroyed barring a policy exemption handed down from the legal department, and they only do that if they are forced to do so.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> And just to hammer this point home again: if the retention policy says 'destroy after 7 years', then it gets detroyed no matter what it is.
> 
> You are really not allowed to say _'hm this might be interesting to the conspiracy nuts, I'll just keep a copy just in case'_. It gets destroyed barring a policy exemption handed down from the legal department, and they only do that if they are forced to do so.


 

That is correct. 

And I suspect that it's just what happened. The SEC keeps filings seemingly forever. Everything else is likely to be subject to a RRP. The letter is just the poorly worded typical legalese speak. They don't want, for whatever reasons, to just come out and say 'we destroyed it as per RRP', instead they say the nebulous 'We looked and couldn't find it, it's likely destroyed.'


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 23, 2010)

And who is to say that different sorts of records have different retention regulations.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And who is to say that different sorts of records have different retention regulations.


 

We don't know. We know 3 things for sure. 

1) The SEC keeps filings (quarterly, annual and MD&A) of public corporations traded on American stock exchanges for what looks like forever.

2) Copies of documents used to support a report were destroyed.

3) The SEC requires corporations to keep details of supporting documentation for 7 years.

Now at this point given the choice between:

A) the SEC illegally destroyed documents because of a tenuous link between corporate officers and a former chief of the CIA in an effort to cover up a vast conspiracy over 9/11

OR

B) The SEC destroyed documents because they had reached their RRP date

I'll take option B.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2010)

I think a whole bunch of people are having trouble reading english.

The SEC did not destroy anything (and the SEC does not keep records of every transaction that takes place, either).

The SEC was asked to provide the information as part of a FOIA request.  They apparently responded:



> This  letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of  the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the  September 11 (9/11) Commission Report.
> 
> ***
> 
> We have been  advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.



Did anyone read in that where the SEC said *THEY* had the records?  Did anyone read anything in there that said the SEC had destroyed them?  Because that's not what I'm reading.

The SEC was asked for the records.  The SEC apparently went to the September 11 Commission members and asked for those records.  They were told that the records had been destroyed.  They reported that back to the FOIA requester.

What the article does NOT say is who it was, precisely, that originally HAD the requested records.  Nor does it say who the SEC asked for them.

There are a whole lot of holes here.

And frankly, even if the SEC had the records and destroyed them, it doesn't prove anything except that they had them and destroyed them.  It does not prove government conspiracy in 9/11; it might tend to show that there were parties that knew of the attacks beforehand and profited from them by placing 'put' options on the two airlines involved.  Potential parties might include the terrorists themselves, sensitive parties inside 'friendly' governments, or any number of things that do NOT mean that OUR government knew of or planned the attacks themselves.

No smoking gun.  Some poor reading skills, though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2010)

The article came out on Zero Hedge on 6/15.  I became aware of it a few days later.  Since then, I've been poking around various regulations and websites and I can't find anything in regards to an official SEC RRP.  What I do find is an assurance that they keep everything and that you can search various data bases or file FIOAs in order to get the documents you want.  They have been collecting information back to 1934.

Now, lets look at the information the SEC collects.

Here is a list of forms that the SEC collects with documentation.

Here is one of the forms that pertains to the question at hand.  This form is available on EDGAR, supplementary documentation is available upon request.

Please note that consolidated financial reports are a part of this filing.  This means that traders who placed the put-options with the firms would have been found in this information.  

Therefore, we can conclude that the SEC had the information on who was insider trading and destroyed it.  We can also conclude that this information was supposed to be available upon request, but was destroyed.  

Was this a mistake or was this part of an effort to cover up insider trading links?  It is not unreasonable to consider this possibility because key documentation has been destroyed for other cases in the past.  Corruption is a reasonable expectation in an agency whose head was one Bernie Madoff.  A lot of the reason why investigators are having issues discovering the origin of various exotic financial products is because the supplemental documentation has gone missing or has been destroyed.

What all of this documentation would show if it was available is that insiders associated with an Baltimore based firm associated with the CIA placed put-options on airlines based on inside information and profited from the attacks of 9/11.  Essentially, this information would prove that certain individuals knew in advance that American and United airlines would suffer some sort of catastrophe and that their stock prices would drop sharply.  This indicates that certain individuals had foreknowledge of the attacks.  If one of these individuals were to take the stand and were subject to questioning, they would have to plead the fifth because there is no excuse for that level of trading other then inside information.  

Does this lead to a larger conspiracy?  That is a question that I feel needs to be investigated.  Unfortunately, it appears that the individuals who would know the answer to a great number of salient questions, have been obfuscated from public scrutiny.  Whether by mistake or malice, that is what has happened.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Some poor reading skills, though.



Did you miss the part where the SEC said they searched their own databases?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2010)

Have you ever seen a form 10-K?

If you own shares in a company, the form 10-K is essentially the annual report you get. Additional information, such as details behind the statements are requested from the corporations. And THEY only have to keep that for 7 years.

We don't know exactly what was asked for. The answer simply means that they looked in their databases, and whatever details requested is not available. It actually reads like a computer generated form.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The article came out on Zero Hedge on 6/15.  I became aware of it a few days later.  Since then, I've been poking around various regulations and websites and I can't find anything in regards to an official SEC RRP.  What I do find is an assurance that they keep everything and that you can search various data bases or file FIOAs in order to get the documents you want.  They have been collecting information back to 1934.
> 
> Now, lets look at the information the SEC collects.
> 
> ...



No, that's not correct.  The options, if I'm reading it correctly, were 'put' options on the airlines involved.  That's margin trading, and it's common.

When I place an order with my stockbroker to purchase stock, sell stock, or engage in margin trading (which I don't, but I could), there is no record of it made with the SEC.  I don't file any forms with the SEC, nor does my stockbroker.

A form 10-K is simply a financial form filed with the SEC by the companies themselves.  Not the traders, not the stockbrokers.

It *is* true that the SEC is planning to begin tracking every single transaction on the NYSE, and it may follow suit on the CBOT and other exchanges inside the USA, but that's just been announced and has not, as yet, been implemented to the best of my knowledge.  The SEC most assuredly does NOT have records of individual transactions going back decades as you assert.




> Was this a mistake or was this part of an effort to cover up insider trading links?  It is not unreasonable to consider this possibility because key documentation has been destroyed for other cases in the past.  Corruption is a reasonable expectation in an agency whose head was one Bernie Madoff.  A lot of the reason why investigators are having issues discovering the origin of various exotic financial products is because the supplemental documentation has gone missing or has been destroyed.
> 
> What all of this documentation would show if it was available is that insiders associated with the CIA placed put-options on airlines based on inside information and profited from the attacks of 9/11.  Essentially, this information would prove that certain individuals knew in advance that American and United airlines would suffer some sort of catastrophe and that their stock prices would drop sharply.  This indicates that certain individuals had foreknowledge of the attacks.  If one of these individuals were to take the stand and were subject to questioning, they would have to plead the fifth because there is no excuse for that level of trading other then inside information.
> 
> Does this lead to a larger conspiracy?  That is a question that I feel needs to be investigated.  Unfortunately, it appears that the individuals who would know the answer to a great number of salient questions, have been obfuscated from public scrutiny.  Whether by mistake or malice, that is what has happened.



Here is the document in question:







Where did the SEC look in order to respond to David Callahan of SmartCEO's request?

_"...the Commission's various systems of records..."_

Which commission?  The 9/11 Commission.  Not the SEC, not their records.

What were the results?  The (the SEC) were _"...advised that the potentially responsive records had been destroyed..."_  Whose records?  The Commission's records.  Who advised them?  The letter does not state that.  All the records were destroyed, or just the records of the 'put' option trades that the Commission asked for?  We don't know.

What does this mean?

It means what I said previously; that there may have been a large number of 'put' option trades prior to 9/11 on the two airlines affected.

Who placed them?  We don't know.  Perhaps someone does, and that indeed would be a conspiracy of some sort if the information is known and being withheld.

But does it mean the CIA did it?  Does it mean the US government did it?  Does it mean the terrorists themselves did it?   Does it mean that certain persons in 'friendly' governments who also had ties to the terrorists and therefore advance knowledge did it?  WE DO NOT KNOW.

Smoking gun?  No.




> Published on September 21, 2001, The Washington Times{PUBLICATION2}
> 
> FBI expands terrorist hunt into U.S. banks
> 
> ...



Now, why would the FBI be 'seeking' those records if all they had to do was demand them of the SEC?

Because the SEC doesn't track individual transactions.



> Associated Press Archive - October 18, 2001
> 
> SEC asks companies to cooperate with authorities in terrorism investigations
> Federal securities regulators on Thursday asked all U.S. securities businesses to cooperate voluntarily with law-enforcement authorities in their continuing investigations into the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The Securities and Exchange Commission last month asked securities businesses to check their records for accounts held or transactions by any of the suspects in the case identified by the FBI, or by any of the people and organizations with suspected links to terrorism --.



Why would the SEC ask securities firms to voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement agencies, why not turn over the records themselves?  Because they don't have them, that's why.

FOIA requests are interesting.  They have to be tailored narrowly in order to produce anything useful, mostly.  This request was (apparently) aimed at looking specifically for information that the 9/11 Commission might have produced regarding 'put' option trades.  And that's the response that was sent - it answered the question asked, and nothing more.

However, the SEC did it's own investigation of possible trading abuses back in 2001, and it took some time.  By 2004, they had concluded that there was no evidence of such trades.  I don't know why the person who filed the FOIA didn't ask about that.  I presume he did, perhaps in a different request, but the answer wasn't as 'conspiracy' sounding as this one.

And this one is straight-forward and easy to understand.  The SEC does not say that THEY destroyed the records, or that THEY had the records to begin with.  But lots of blogs are saying precisely that, because people can't read - or choose not to.

Whatever sounds evil and ominous and has the government involved with it, I guess.

I feel icky even attempting to wade through this drivel.  Like I need a shower or something.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2010)

More...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404819.html


> *SEC proposes tracking large traders' moves*
> 
> 
> By Zachary A. Goldfarb
> ...



The SEC does not track individual transactions.  Therefore, they would have no access to such records.  They're trying to change that, but they haven't yet.  They certainly didn't have it in 2001.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2010)

And from your quote, while they would require the trades to be 'tagged', the actual transactions would still sit at the trader's office. 



> The brokerages, in turn, would have to submit any data
> requested by the SEC.


 
I would gyess that the same people moaning about the lack of information available from theSEC would be first in line to moan about the cost in IT infrastructure for the SEC to record and retain every trade made on a US Exchange.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I would gyess that the same people moaning about the lack of information available from theSEC would be first in line to moan about the cost in IT infrastructure for the SEC to record and retain every trade made on a US Exchange.



Some might also complain (as would I) about the unwarranted intrusion upon personal privacy.

Tell me, if I have 100 dollars, and I earned it legally, paid taxes on it if required, and keep it in a jar buried in my backyard, is that the government's business?  Should I have to tell them that I have it, or where it is located?

If I invest it with a friend's company, do I have to tell the government that I did it?  I mean, as long as I properly declare any profit and pay taxes on it, or likewise declare any loss?

Same goes for my bank - is there some right the government has to know how much money I have in my checking account or my savings account, or how I spend it?  Again, as long as I pay any taxes due on interest paid.

When I invest, the government does not (currently) have any knowledge of what stocks I own.  Nor does it need to.  The Patriot Act and various other new laws required the brokerage (or bank) to be able to positively identify me - so my bank and broker knows who I am, I have verified myself sufficiently to them.  I get a 1099 form if I earn any interest or dividends are disbursed or I cash out of stocks I own, showing profit and loss, and the government gets a copy of it and I have to file my taxes accordingly.  However, the government does NOT know what stocks it was that I owned.

And they SHOULD know that WHY?

It's none of their freaking business.  None.

How I vote, where I go to church, and what I buy with my money, whether or not I own guns and if so how many and what kind; all my personal business and NOT the business of the federal government.

If there is a problem, the government has recourse, as it did with the 9/11 situation.  The brokerages maintain records, and the government can get at them if it needs to.  But otherwise, they can keep their noses out.

Once, a long time ago, I was a young Marine at Camp Pendleton.  I got a form letter from the base CG, informing me that I was one of the Marines identified by the Bank of America (located on base) who had less than $100 in my checking account on a daily basis.  I was informed that the base CG thought it was a good idea that Marines keep more than that in their accounts, good financial discipline and so forth.

I was so angry, I went and closed my pathetic small checking account. I do no business with Bank of America, they gave MY PERSONAL INFORMATION to the Marine Corps on demand.  It's nobody's business.  NOBODY'S.  EVER.

Terrorism is no excuse to allow the government further invasion of our precious privacy.  I'd rather the government have to jump through some hoops to get the data than willingly turn over my private records to them on the off chance that it might save them some time in an investigation.  My privacy is worth more than that.  I would love to personally thank all the people who want to give our privacy away.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2010)

But if you don't got nothin' to hide, why dontcha help fight them tearists


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, that's not correct.



I think you are reading too much into some of this, Bill.

Take a look at all of the forms the SEC collects.  Part of the supplementary documentation that is required would have held the information on these particular trades.  That information has been destroyed.  I agree that none of this is a smoking gun, but it does merit further investigation.  The bottom line is that we looking at paper trail that leads to people who had insider information and made trades on that information.  Part of this paper trail was obfuscated, making the whole business harder to pin names to these trades.  

A put option isn't something like writing a check.  This is a financial transaction that needs to be reported.  Especially when one makes millions of dollars from them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I think you are reading too much into some of this, Bill.



I'm not the one engaging in speculation about evil motives.



> Take a look at all of the forms the SEC collects.  Part of the supplementary documentation that is required would have held the information on these particular trades.  That information has been destroyed.  I agree that none of this is a smoking gun, but it does merit further investigation.  The bottom line is that we looking at paper trail that leads to people who had insider information and made trades on that information.  Part of this paper trail was obfuscated, making the whole business harder to pin names to these trades.



The SEC did an investigation.  The FBI did an investigation.  The 9/11 Commission did an investigation.  All investigated this trading situation.  I don't know what the FBI or the 9/11 Commission came up with, but the SEC announced (I seem to recall in 2004) that they had found nothing illegal in the trades they examined.

Presuming they were not lying, then they quite properly destroyed the information.  No crime was committed, and the names of the people who benefited from those trades are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS (or mine).  Again, assuming no wrong-doing.

Let's imagine YOU were one of those who did a put option on United Airlines the day before 9/11.  The government investigates and discovers you just had a hunch and played it and you were right and made money.  Is that my business?  Should I have access to your private financial data because you were accused but cleared?



> A put option isn't something like writing a check.  This is a financial transaction that needs to be reported.  Especially when one makes millions of dollars from them.



The fact that a put option is not like a check is not a valid reason to demand that the government track them.  People make millions of dollars on arbitrage, naked shorts and longs, rumors, hints, and allegations.  There are laws defining what they can and can't do; presuming they are operating inside the law, it's no one's business.

Please stop volunteering to give away my privacy.   I'm very much against it.  I would not willingly give away yours.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I think you are reading too much into some of this, Bill.
> 
> Take a look at all of the forms the SEC collects. Part of the supplementary documentation that is required would have held the information on these particular trades.


 

I went through the list. Can't find one. Elucidate me.

First hint. These are documents that the ISSUING corporation provides, *at time of issue*. Once stock has been issued and sold, the movement of said stock is no longer the concern of the issuing corporation, unless aquired or sold by corporate officers and employees.

So again, which form would be in the SEC possession that would have contained details of put transactions?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The SEC does not track individual transactions. Therefore, they would have no access to such records. *They're trying to change that, but they haven't yet*. They certainly didn't have it in 2001.


 

Does this include _online _trades? It better not.........


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Elucidate me.



This is where you would file information regarding put or call options.  It is one of the forms on the list I provided.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 24, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I went through the list. Can't find one. Elucidate me.



You're not going to let boring facts stand in the way of a good (well, mediocre) conspiracy theory, don't you? 

It was the same a couple of months ago when we had the debate about the NIST report on the twin tower collapse. On one hand we have engineers who produce a detailed report that makes sense, and which fits with the things I learned in my structural engineering minor, and on the other we have people who haven't even read the report (let alone understood it) yet dismiss it as unlikely and claim there has to be a better explanation that would also fulfill their need for a evil mastermind.

Same with this. Rather than accept a rational explanation and just looking at the words of the FOIA response itself, the SEC is now in on the conspiracy too. And I am willing to bet that whatever information will be released about any big event, the same people will flock to the conspiracies.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 24, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You're not going to let boring facts stand in the way...



Deleted.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Yeah, like the fact that the SEC collects the very information that was destroyed.  That the SEC has been shown to archive all of its filings.  That the SEC has proven itself to be corrupt on many occasions...whatever.



Filings, yes, detailed logs of all transactions, apparently not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 24, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Filings, yes, detailed logs of all transactions, apparently not.



Deleted.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Please stop volunteering to give away my privacy.   I'm very much against it.  I would not willingly give away yours.



This is what I'm talking about, Bill.  You are reading too much into this.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> This is where you would file information regarding put or call options. It is one of the forms on the list I provided.


 
13-F requires institutional investors with at least $100 millions in holding to report on what they are holding on a quaterly basis. It is not details of transactions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 24, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> 13-F requires institutional investors with at least $100 millions in holding to report on what they are holding on a quaterly basis. It is not details of transactions.



They certainly do require details.  You need to report your puts and calls and a number of other things.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> They certainly do require details. You need to report your puts and calls and a number of other things.


 
Wrong.



> *Question 8*
> 
> *Q:*What information must institutional investment managers report on Form 13F?*A:*Among other things, Form 13F filings must include:
> 
> ...




It's a total per class, per issuer owned by that institutional investor.  Key words being *total* and *owned*. 

No where is there a details of transactions during that quarter. Nor is there and details on whose behalf transactions were made. Comparative analysis of consecutive reports will give you net difference of securities owned by that insttutional investor.  That's it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 24, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you misread that Q&A.  I spent until 11:30 reading the actual documents and school of law reviews on the matter trying to verify what other financial analysts and reporters have said.  The SEC even said they had the information and it was destroyed.  How are you so sure on this matter?  What is your background?  

I'm going to shoot an e-mail to a friend of mine who was an investment manager on Wall Street and we'll see what he says as well.  BTW - this is plenty of information to start an investigation into who had insider information...


----------

