Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
And who is to say that different sorts of records have different retention regulations.
Government destroys documents on 9/11 put-options - a smoking gun for an inside job?
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #24
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.
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #25
Did you miss the part where the SEC said they searched their own databases?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404819.html
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404819.html
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.
And from your quote, while they would require the trades to be 'tagged', the actual transactions would still sit at the trader's office.
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.
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #32
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.
I'm not the one engaging in speculation about evil motives.
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?
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.
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?
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,931
- Reaction score
- 1,454
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #38
Deleted.
Last edited:
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
Filings, yes, detailed logs of all transactions, apparently not.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #40
Deleted.
Last edited:
