Comments on: Short-seller demonization watch, Tom Matzzie edition A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: hsvkitty Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:51:42 +0000 HBC said:

“It’s unlikely that the Senate will lift a finger to impede the malfeasance of Sallie Mae and the united edufraud squad. It was however remarkable that they sat still for what Eisner had to say, and at least somebody said it. They weren’t likely to invite or listen to Ralph Nader, who has absolutely zero conflict of interest… were they? ”

I reiterate, it is NOT about Eisman’s bias! Of course he is biased. It is about manipulation of the stock market and public trust in the Senate. The Senate is bound to never be seen to further self interest or improperly further another person’s or entity’s private interests.

I have never denied that what he had to say was important! it is just sad that it had to come from that source. And if you had read anything I said, I never denied Eiman’s the points! the fact remains his appearance is in his favour and self interest, NOT the students or education or for the good schools.

HBC< There were regulatory changes even before the hearings began, which hopefully do only good things and will not hurt the good schools.

And KID you tire me thinking I didn't read anything before I spoke and that I am uninformed! As a parent I am thinking like one. I did read. AT least I am not just a talking head, spewing a dislike and calling Mattzie a dbag which is really all this thread is about.

(admit it boys… you give a flying crap about education or the schools or you would see his appearance could taint the proceedings and the outcome in a negative way and Kid you said you were done with me many spews ago … what if Eisman isn't entirely correct? then it is ok to destroy them all? I see…)

By: KidDynamite Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:22:18 +0000 yes HBC.. “more concerned with screening messengers than messages”…sounds awfully dangerous, doesn’t it? but the poor uninformed masses are more worried about the damage these darn short sellers do to the economy {sarcasm!} (yep – Matzzie actually said that. I kid you not). Which is precisely why Matzzie needed a sound, swift, harsh rebuttal.

short sellers don’t destroy the economy. Steve Eisman does not destroy public for profit education companies. The companies destroy themselves with their corrupt policies, business practices and decisions – if Eisman is correct.

good luck folks. on to the next topic.

By: HBC Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:17:01 +0000 Nobody enjoys being seen as “against education”. That would be like being “against homeownership” leaving “a child behind” or being a socialized medicine “commie”. Still, what needs to be said on these matters needs saying, not suppressing.

The difference between the MBS bubble and the education bubble is not that in both cases the underclass is deliberately hosed good and proper, but that in the latter example they didn’t even get the illusion of possibly owning a home to sweeten their financial enslavement. All they get is brainwashed.

It’s unlikely that the Senate will lift a finger to impede the malfeasance of Sallie Mae and the united edufraud squad. It was however remarkable that they sat still for what Eisner had to say, and at least somebody said it. They weren’t likely to invite or listen to Ralph Nader, who has absolutely zero conflict of interest… were they?

In absence of Senate decisiveness (is there such a thing? – more and more the Senate’s just another place white collar crime goes to get whitewashed) the symbolism of shorting educational usurers seems kindred to the spirit of education itself, by other means.

The market itself doesn’t see it as manipulation when you announce you’re coming after something with vengeance. Look at that little whiner Icahn, fer crying out…

In any case, there my admiration for Eisner ends. But my suspicion of Matzzie being an issue-tailgating careerist neolib who’s more concerned with screening messengers than messages that need delivering remains.

By: hsvkitty Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:17:06 +0000 You grade me a fail? Are you 15? You forgot to say PHAIL, so I know you are at least older then 12… I guess you really are a kid…

A soccer announcer being compared to testimony in a senate hearing? The announcer does NOT have an effect on how the game is played! The outcome of the hearings will have an effect on the markets, the schools, shareholders, the students, the reputaion of the students and schools, the future of the students and the schools and Eisman’s pocketbook.


This is a hearing… and he is being called to testify at a hearing. This is not a hearing to line anyone’s pockets and it is unethical to do so. The hearings are always to be in the interest of the taxpayer and public trust. He is being called to testify AGAINST the schools.

YOU keep saying he must be proven WRONG and keep repeating that… as defense to YOUR argument. but that is not the point of his blog and never was. It is YOUR point and FELIX’s point.

You keep going back to Mattzie, but Mattzies’s message had nothing to do with your point. His point was that the schools will all bear the cost of his words WHETHER HE IS RIGHT OR WRONG. The markets are being manipulated by his words.

The outcome of these hearings is to hopefully change the for profit schools so that they will not waste taxpayers or students money or place them into unnecessary debt or be fed false information. THAT is what the hearing are for.

That is not Mattzie’s job, that is the the job of the senate probe and the Government Accountability Office. (and well before it being brought to light by the a person who will most profit from it)

After being made a hero in the book, I am sure Eisman has many people drooling and green with envy so it IS a point. Who questions the master? No one will even know how compelling his evidence is until the probe is complete.

Meanwhile, the outcome of the hearings affects the stocks,the schools and their reputation, the students and sadly the ability to get jobs even though their schools were accredited.

I still do not think Eisman should have been asked to testify (oh excuse me, read his “thesis”) as his position and the OUTCOME of the hearings, which are set by name to be AGAINST the schools, are in his interest. I believe the Senate Ethics Committee should have disallowed his appearance for that reason and nothing, nothing, nothing you say will change my mind.

And after having said all that, I do not deny you your argument against the lack of criticizing ” a SINGLE ONE of Eisman’s arguments ” in mattzie’s blog, as you are also allowed an ‘opinion’.

It is NOT about Eisman’s bias. Of course he is biased. It is about manipulation of the stock market and public trust in the Senate. The Senate is bound to never be seen to further self interest or improperly further another person’s or entity’s private interests.

By: KidDynamite Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:07:40 +0000 hsvkitty – i can only hope this will be my final comment. You should make sure you read the report put together by the senate c23515814dca.pdf

and Harkin’s summary: lease/?id=62eb7738-aa26-4ccb-8a5c-592bba 5cf09d&groups=Chair

the (alleged) immorality here is not on Eisman’s part, but rather on the part of the companies that are being looked into. in Harkin’s words:

“Evidence suggests that for-profit schools charge higher tuition than comparable public schools, spend a
large share of revenues on expenses unrelated to teaching, experience high dropout rates, and, in some
cases, employ abusive recruiting and debt-management practices. What distinguishes for-profit schools
from public and non-profit private institutions is that they have an obligation to maximize profits for their
shareholders. Indeed, securities law sanctifies the notion that each corporation must act in the interest of
its shareholders. However, this imperative could conflict with the objective of Federal student aid programs,
which is to increase access to a quality higher education. This evidence, and the potential conflicts
underlying it, points to the need for rigorous government oversight and prudent regulation to safeguard the
investments of taxpayers and students.”

and the paragraph before that, lest you worry that Steve Eisman’s actions will make it so that kids can’t get an education:

“For-profit schools are an important part of the mix of postsecondary institutions. They increase access to
higher education by providing needed capacity as well as innovative options that can make it easier for
students to complete their postsecondary education while managing work and family obligations. Enrollment
in for-profit schools has grown dramatically over the past decade and, each year has seen a larger
share of Federal student aid dollars flowing to these schools. Congress and the U. S. Department of Education
have a duty to ensure that for-profit schools spend these Federal dollars efficiently and effectively.”

By: KidDynamite Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:47:11 +0000 kitty – it’s especially depressing and saddening that you bring morality into this – it means you were fooled/mislead. See, morality has nothing to do with it. logic and reasoning, the ability to form a coherent thesis and debunk an argument that makes no sense are the subject at hand. It is not my opinion that Tom Matzzie did not dispute a single one of Eisman’s theses – it’s a fact. It has nothing to do with my “moral compass.”

this is especially unacceptable since Mattzie (and EVERYONE ELSE – which is important – Eisman doesn’t hide his position!) knows that “Eisman has staked a fortune on government action against higher education companies.” Guess what – that’s your signal that you might want to look extra hard for something to debate in his logic! Yet, Matzzie did not. Fact – not my opinion, and nothing to do with morals.

By: KidDynamite Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:36:14 +0000 hsvkitty – your complete inability to comprehend the very simple points here is exactly why Matzzie’s propagation of ignorance is so dangerous – because you are the norm. MANY people don’t understand, even though it couldn’t be simpler.

a World Cup analogy came to mind. John Harkes does the announcing for the US games for ABC. as the former captain of Team USA, he is about as far from unbiased as one can get. He loves USA soccer. He probably has the cell phone numbers of many of the players in his phone, and talks to them frequently. He wants them to win. Yet that doesn’t mean that his analysis of the game is incorrect. It merely means that if one is going to argue with John Harkes, one has extra reason to try to find flaws in his argument, because we know he is biased. It does NOT mean that Harkes is wrong just because he is biased.

you continue to dwell on some made up hero worship i have for Eisman. although i think he’s a stud for having the foresight to have seen in subprime what others did not, i am not arguing the merits of Eisman’s argument AT ALL. He may be wrong – if you want to prove him wrong, you need to DEBUNK his thesis and offer alternative explanations for the data he observes. By calling him a short seller who profits from the decline of companies, all one does his highlight their own massive ignorance and inability to make a cohesive argument.

when one knows that Eisman has incentives, it gives one EXTRA reasons to try to critique his arguments. please note – critique the ARGUMENTS, not the MOTIVES.

the fact remains (FACT – no interpretation necessary) – Matzzie did not criticize a SINGLE ONE of Eisman’s arguments. see if you can grasp that simple, simple simple concept. it’s my entire point – Matzzie chose to shoot the messenger rather than debunk the message. Fail.

By: hsvkitty Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:15:34 +0000 Paragraph one, line 5 “He never said Mattzie was wrong; ” should have been, “He never said Eisman was wrong;”

The fact that all of you so heartily disagree means you might wish to look at your moral compass and see if it is slightly skewed.

By: hsvkitty Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:11:12 +0000 Hey kid, putting words in my mouth and changing the gist of Mattzie’s blog, do not make you more intelligent nor right. Although you do not like Matzzie, he was making the point of conflict of interest and arguing alignment of interest is just another poor excuse to make a profit and deny moral issues. He never said Mattzie was wrong; he said Eisman had too much to gain in his biased position to be testifying against the schools!

Jail house confessions aren’t from expert witnesses BTW … and while this isn’t a court of Law, his testimony should be complete and accurate as he is being called upon to testify.

My analogy was not for a court of law, but to remind that his “testimony” will be tainted. As “compelling” as you believe his thesis to be, was it written to enhance the proceedings or to enhance his portfolio? I know you all wish to “believe” he is Robin Hood, I think you have your heads in the sand. It DOES matter where the information comes from. You show this yourselves as you hate mattzie and are in awe of Eisman.

What Eisman writes is probably true of many corrupt schools. But being he is ensuring even good schools are harmed, monetarily and by reputation, and being his position is to short, and being he is testifyling AGAINST the schools, being he is regurgitating a speech rather then referring to his documentation from his “extensive” investigation he should not have been asked to testify.

Your U.S. Government Accountability Office should have requested his documents and used them, along with student complaints to probe the schools and then have that group testify, citing the schools in question. THAT would be an aligning of interests that didn’t manipulate the markets! (which was the reason for his blog, but you won’t allow his his say because you don’t LIKE him)

Quoting Mattzie:

“Could the committee possibly expect unbiased testimony? No. Eisman has staked a fortune on government action against higher education companies.

Worse than the conflict is that the entire Senate hearing plays into Eisman’s strategy of creating a giant circus about higher education companies. The bigger the circus, the lower the stock price and the more money Eisman makes. The U.S. Senate shouldn’t have a leading role in a Wall Street investor’s “gambling” strategy — especially a short-seller.

The threat a short seller represents to companies isn’t false. The ginned-up threat of regulation or the suggestion of legislation has already been driving down the stock prices of these companies.”

By: HBC Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:37:18 +0000 If either of them is biased, both of them are biased. But only one of them is casting stones. The other’s speaking to the topic in a constructive manner.

Eisman, calm and collected, duly disclosed his material position.

Matzzie, hot and bothered, declines to disabuse his neoliberal slant.

If there’s any other light in which to portray pie-in-the-sky edutainment boot camp usury than a bad one, won’t somebody – anybody, please, with or without alleged conflict of interest – turn it on? Either way, it needs lighting up, not a hot oil massage.