Short-seller demonization watch, ProPublica edition

By Felix Salmon
July 12, 2010
Remember when left-wing inside-the-Beltway pressure-group person Tom Matzzie started demonizing Steve Eisman for being a short seller, without actually engaging with any of his arguments about how for-profit colleges are causing a huge amount of damage and very little benefit? Well, it wasn't long before another inside-the-Beltway pressure group joined in: this time it was Melanie Sloan, of something called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Remember when left-wing inside-the-Beltway pressure-group person Tom Matzzie started demonizing Steve Eisman for being a short seller, without actually engaging with any of his arguments about how for-profit colleges are causing a huge amount of damage and very little benefit? Well, it wasn’t long before another inside-the-Beltway pressure group joined in: this time it was Melanie Sloan, of something called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Sloan’s letter to Tom Harkin, of the Senate Committee on Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions, received a great reply, pointing out that Sloan had no problem with people invested in the for-profit college’s success testifying in front of Harkin’s committee:

Mr. Eisman is not the only person to testify before a Senate Committee this year who has a stake in federal policy. Indeed, the same panel had another witness with a financial stake in the regulatory treatment of for-profit colleges: Ms. Sharon Thomas Parrott of DeVry University. In the case of both Mr. Eisman and Ms. Parrott, their financial interests did not preclude them from having valuable information that benefited our discussion of the for-profit educational industry…

We welcome your observations and invite you to further explore the actual matter of our hearing. I have attached a report released at the hearing that outlines in greater detail how the for-profit colleges receive $23 billion in taxpayer dollars, but offer little transparency regarding the outcomes of that investment. Your assistance in seeking greater transparency in the for-profit higher education industry, for example, on behalf of its students, as well as taxpayers, would be a great service.

Good for Senator Harkin. But of course there’s clearly a fishy organized campaign going on here: why exactly are people like Matzzie and Sloan suddenly getting terribly exercised about Evil Hedge Fund Short Sellers in general, and Steve Eisman in particular? Eisman’s testimony is very compelling, and so the only possible grounds to attack him are ad hominem ones, essentially saying that he can’t be allowed to testify just because of who he is and how he makes his money.

Now Matzzie and Sloan have a most unlikely new bedfellow in their campaign against the short sellers: Sharona Coutts of ProPublica. Last year, ProPublica launched what it calls an “ongoing investigation” into for-profit schools, especially their graduation and loan-default rates. She’s naturally on the side of the angels here, which is to say, the short-sellers. But nothing was published in 2010, until now, when Coutts filed a story headlined “Investment Funds Stir Controversy Over Recruiting by For-Profit Colleges.”

You might remember Coutts from a dreadful story she filed in 2008, attacking Goldman Sachs for putting out credit research. This story isn’t half as bad as that one, but at heart it’s similar, assuming that anything done by anybody on Wall Street must be suspect:

Some short sellers appear to be moving beyond assessing particular companies and taking a financial position accordingly. Now, says the Career College Association, some are trying to stage-manage the reporting of negative stories to fuel the impression of a groundswell of anger against the schools.

“Certainly there are legitimate critics. I may not agree with them, but they’re not in it to fatten their wallets,” said Harris Miller, president of the CCA, which represents for-profit schools. “But I think that a lot of the activity going on, and with other media reports, is being driven by the short sellers, who are hiring people who are semi-disguising who they are and not being candid with people about their role in trying to drive down the stock price of certain companies.”

The only remotely scandalous thing in Coutts’s story is the tale of a single researcher, Johnette McConnell Early, who helped to organize a letter signed by the representatives of 19 different homeless shelters, complaining about how “for-profit trade schools and career colleges are systematically preying upon our clients.” Early’s mistake was that she didn’t tell the signatories that she was employed by an investment firm. She could and should have done so, because now some of the signatories feel that they were duped:

“Had I known, I probably wouldn’t have signed on,” Panico said. “I probably would have contacted one of the other people and said, ‘Hey, now that we have all this information, let’s do this ourselves.’ I think it’s sleazy to basically use me and use other executive directors that have a real issue to make a profit for some companies.”

The irony here, of course, is that the letter would have had even more force if Panico and the other signatories had simply taken the information from Early and put together the letter themselves: that way no one could discount the real moral force behind the letter on the grounds that there was any kind of hidden agenda.

But instead, Coutts is now writing a silly exposé of a non-issue, quoting the paid representative of the for-profit schools uncritically, and training her sights instead on exactly the people who are willing to invest a lot of time, effort, and money into uncovering the gruesome truth.

Coutts doesn’t know who paid Early: it may or may not have been Eisman. I hope it wasn’t: it would be an ethical blunder on Eisman’s part to be anything but fully transparent about his efforts to get the government to crack down on this sordid industry. On the other hand, she’s not being entirely transparent herself about where she got the information that Early was working for a hedge fund; in fact, she never says in the article who fed her that particular nugget. If I had to guess, I’d say that it was Harris Miller, and I’d also be very interested in finding out what his connections might be with Matzzie and Sloan.

As for the headline on Coutts’s piece, it’s clearly Coutts herself, rather than “investment funds,” who’s stirring controversy here. (Incidentally, it’s pretty hard to justify the plural in the headline: even if Coutts Early was hired by an investment fund, it’s pretty safe to assume that there was only one fund involved.) Unless and until Coutts started phoning up the signatories to the letter and asking them how they felt about being duped by Evil Hedge Fund Short Sellers, there was no controversy here at all: in fact, it looks to me that the entire controversy, insofar as it exists, has been manufactured by Coutts and the anti-Eisman brigade. Certainly there’s no indication, anywhere in Coutts’s story, that the likes of Miller and Sloan look pretty desperate if the biggest gun they have to train on Eisman’s arguments is that a single researcher, who might not have anything to do with Eisman at all, made a stupid mistake regarding her personal disclosure. Especially since full disclosure would have made no real difference to anything.

The lesson here, I think, is that short sellers have to be very, very careful to be whiter than white in anything they do or say: the companies they’re campaigning against will happily just start shouting “short sellers!” in an attempt to drown out rational argument — and those shouts, sadly, can be very effective. Happily, Tom Harkin, at least, seems to be quite good at ignoring them.

Update: ProPublica’s Dick Tofel leaves a comment, saying that “ProPublica found out who wrote the letter by asking some of the people who signed it”. Which makes the whole thing seem even less scandalous.

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
18 comments so far

Great post. My sense of the ProPublia piece is that Coutts tries pretty hard to justify the title of her article, but at the end of the day, my own takeaway is that the short sellers still have damn good reasons to short the sector. Maybe I’ve been trained to read between the lines. Living in Washington, you learn not to be impressed with organizations/associations/groups that have fancy, intimidating names.

Posted by dealjunkie | Report as abusive

As the story indicates, ProPublica found out who wrote the letter by asking some of the people who signed it.
P.S. The parenthetical phrase “even if Coutts was hired by an investment fund” should say “even if Early was hired by an investment fund.”

Posted by rtofel | Report as abusive

If you are not done with this, neither am I. I won’t repeat what I wrote in the first one, so you don’t think I am attacking you to win an argument…. I am attacking the ethical issues.

Sharon Thomas Parrott of DeVry University was also an officer in the US Department of Education’s Office of Student Financial. I think she had a legitimate reason to be at the hearings, given her background.

http://people.forbes.com/profile/sharon- thomas-parrott/26179

Felix said:

“Early’s mistake was that she didn’t tell the signatories that she was employed by an investment firm. She could and should have done so, because now some of the signatories feel that they were duped”

Bur Felix, This is an important omission… it isn’t that Early didn’t “tell.” It should matter what she told them she was. (I am so picky on those silly ethics issues aren’t I?)

“Early told Neil Donovan, executive director and president of the National Coalition for the Homeless in Washington, D.C. that she worked for a Dallas company that offered advice and private research called J.W. McConnell & Sons, Donovan said.”

ProPublica checked and there is no such Company. Private research indeed. So private no one knows it exists.

I googled… J.W. McConnell & Sons research Texas

There is no website

There is no business listing other then being added to a business network site

The Business is in Houston not Dallas

I dialed the number. The auto answer said “hello, please leave a message after the tone…”

If it exists and she is a legitimate employee, then you have a point. Otherwise, it seems she lied. That same letter also made it to Frontline. The Producer was not too happy when she heard the source either. No one likes to be used as pawns. Do you?

Felix said:
“But instead, Coutts is now writing a silly exposé of a non-issue, quoting the paid representative of the for-profit schools uncritically, and training her sights instead on exactly the people who are willing to invest a lot of time, effort, and money into uncovering the gruesome truth.”

Books have been written about such insignificant happenings.

May I remind you … that you and some of your readers are also training your sights on the people who wrote the articles you so detest. (Matzzie and now Coutts) You can give a flying um leap about the students or the good schools who do not deserve the outcome of bad publicity. You also barely mentioning the schools, felix, or the students and they are brushed with the same brush.

As for my take on Eisman he can’t be whiter then white. He tainted the hearing and the ethical standards which are supposed to be upheld by the Senate Ethics Committee. (no one is to be seen to profit from their contact with the senate, or is influence peddling ok now?) He is in this for his own gain and has been and continues to be well recompensed for his “time, effort, and money into uncovering the gruesome truth.”

Gruesome truth? It is rather gruesome, and yet you have not written a blog about that truth. Which schools are so gruesome? Every last one? Are the students who are legit and in legit schools being harmed? Do you care?

I am waiting for Eisman to say he is doing the God’s work, but then, he doesn’t have to as your 2 blogs make him look so saintly.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

hswkitty – Felix’s point, i believe, again, is that the important issue is the content of the questions the article mentions – not who is asking the questions, namely

1) are “for-profit trade schools and career colleges are systematically preying upon our clients” (with “OUR” being “homeless shelters and service agencies”

and

2) “Durbin said some schools were enticing “low-income, high-risk students” into “mortgaging their futures — not on overpriced homes this time, but on worthless diplomas,” and said Congress must clamp down on the quality of education the schools deliver, and the way the government administers financial aid.”

are these things true? that’s all that matters. of course, Sharona Coutts didn’t attempt to answer either of those questions.

remember, the questions are the same regardless of if they are asked by Johnette Early, Jesus, George Washinton, Barack Obama, Steve Eisman, or Isaac Newton. It’s the FACTS that matter, not the messenger.

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

Kid Dynamite – Kid, in fairness, the way both questions are worded (“preying”, “worthless diplomas”) it’ll only make hsmkitty madder, and even less linear, if you get my drift.

hsmkitty – Ignoring all other points, Kid does bring up the quote about “mortgaging their futures”- which is key. Unlike home mortgages, students loans have no jingle mail, no way of default, etc. These are loans that are more permanent than tattoos – and for-profits specialize in getting people into these kinds of loans.

If there was some way of showing that for-profits are training people successfully (placement rates into the jobs they were trained for, higher or equal wages from previous job with a higher wage ceiling), then I would have less of a problem- but there isn’t a clear record, if any record at all. If you are aware of any stats on placements for for-profits, that would be a key place to start talking about the value of for-profits.

Posted by greyeconomics | Report as abusive

KidDynamite> Given that Sharona has written extensively about the faults of for-profit schools (this piece with Marketplace, for example http://www.propublica.org/article/at-u-o f-phoenix-allegations-of-enrollment-abus es-persist-1103), it seems kind of silly to attack her, in this one story, for focusing on the investment-side of the broad issue. If she had tried to cram in the necessary evidence and background to establish a case against the merits of for-profit education, *and* report out the story of this curious campaign–and keep the word count reasonable, something would be left out.

Felix can argue that this campaign by the investment fund is a minor kerfluffle. But on the other hand, maybe Sharona, who is not on U of Phoenix’s friend-list, should be credited for an article that doesn’t dismiss for-profit education a priori, but points out that they, like any other institution, shouldn’t have its fate unduly affected by a group of investors who not only would profit from the failure of for-profit schools, but also apparently won’t man up to their identities.

This long post from Felix seems to boil down to, “Oh, whatever deception these short-sellers allegedly played, they didn’t seem to put a lot of effort into it, and their targets deserve it anyway.” It’s fine for Felix to argue that short-sellers shouldn’t be reflexively demonized, but here he’s jumping into the comical extreme: that short-sellers are justified in influencing the market, by any means necessary.

Posted by dnguyen | Report as abusive

dnguyen – I’m actually not attacking Coutts here – at least she tried to write a legitimate piece (unlike Matzzie), although as I mentioned above she made the same mistakes, attempting to discredit the messenger rather than the message.

there is a guilty party in this piece, but it’s not one that anyone has mentioned thus far. the guilty party is Nancy Panico – and the 19 other executives who affirmed “for-profit trade schools and career colleges are systematically preying upon our clients.”

it doesn’t matter who brings you that piece of paper (letter, in this case) and asks you to sign it. what matters is what the piece of paper says, and if it’s true.

if Panico’s answer to the question is different depending on who asks it (which she claims it is), SHE is the one who is being intellectually dishonest, logically inconsistent, and showing biases.

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

greyeconomics – just to be clear, the phrases i used, in quotations, where taken directly from the article. they were not my terms – they were the terms that were 1) affirmed by the signatories, and 2) used by Senator Durbin.

also note that i’m not arguing either side of the argument – i’m only pointing out that if someone wants to get involved in the discussion they have to do exactly that – ARGUE THE ARGUMENT! this piece by felix, again, points out that the argument – the veracity of for profit education – is being swept aside in favor of demonization/ad hominem attacks against the people MAKING the arguments.

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

KidDyanmite – noted, I was just saying that if you’re looking for engagement instead of just for rebuttal, you might want to change tactics.

I’m definitely on one side of the argument: I assume that for-profits have a lamprey-like attachment to Title IV largess, that free federal dollars have created slick educational institutions that do not depend on (or care about) the vocational success of their clients, and that Durbin is completely on the right track and could not have done better than to solicit Eisman’s testimony in the first place.

I’ll toss one on top of this for fun – if someone wants to accuse Eisman for talking his book, I’ll only take them seriously if they compare and contrast with Al Gore talking his book. If they’re fine with Al putting his money where his mouth is, then they should be fine with Steve doing the same.

Posted by greyeconomics | Report as abusive

There’s a world of difference between borrowing to pay for an interesting education which may get you nowhere in the short term, and borrowing to pay for courses of ritual indoctrination that purport to be of great vocational value but are practically useless.

I’m not sure what to call this world, and while some people clearly know of its existence, I think it’s unfortunate that so many well-meaning Americans will be among the last to discover it.

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive

Kid, If you cannot see that Nancy Panico is speaking about ethics and being duped and used as a pawn, you could use some ethics lessons. You are trying to make her a guilty party and yet say Eisman is a saint? Nancy Panico was right; it was a very sleazy thing to do. And unethical.

It does matter who solicits. It matters if the answers are the truth… it matters if the senate has an ethics standard… it matters if there is influence peddling.
The producer of frontline felt duped as well.

I am very well aware of the plight of the students, but that isn’t what either of these blogs are about. they are to belittle the authors. That is the gist, the meat and the whole story or it would be about the schools and students.

In fact the meat and the titles, Kid, are about the the demonizing of Eisman and short sellers, not abot the 2 quotes, which are very importnant indeed.

And Grey, I think Al Gore is sleazy as well.

Rather then have Eisman be the saint and be making money while the bad schools profited and students were ripped off of an education and still left with loans to pay here is a thought… and what a blog about the bad schools might be about …

Why were the bad schools able to pull off such an obvious scam? Why is there not more accounting for subsidized schools? Why are school administrators taking home such huge salaries? Why were there not inspections done not only on the financial s but on the student outcomes? Why didn’t adult students who were duped speak up earlier? Why weren’t parents concerned? Why didn’t the shelters report the recruiters? Why was there a senate hearing begun U.S. Government Accountability Office report was complete?

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

oh hswkitty. against my better judgment, i’ll continue to try here…

you continue to say that I think Eisman is a saint. although I never said that, the accusation is VERY relevant to the point (in its IRRELEVANCE!). I don’t care if Eisman tortures puppies in his spare time (although i happen to love puppies)… I don’t care if Eisman is behind the BP oil spill. I don’t care if Eisman goes to church, temple, or worships at a satanic cult. I don’t care if Eisman is long/short/flat or whatever – all i care about, when debating the argument he makes about for profit schools is WHAT HE SAYS!!!! so, if you want to find something wrong with Eisman, argue with what he says, not who he is. see how simple that is? (note again: never in either of these comment threads have i advocated for or against for profit schools, i merely continue to point out that the “critics” of Eisman repeatedly fail to actually critique any of his arguments)

and Nancy Panico is the one who exhibits the same biases you do – she admitted that she’d answer the same question differently depending on who asked it. that’s intellectually weak, in my book.

best,
KD

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

Nice try Kid…

It is NOT who asked, but what was being done with the information. Was it delivered to the Accountability Office to assist in their investigation? Was it used to ensure that the schools who were responsible were told to cease and desist and find new recruiters so it would stop? Of course not…

If I were the head of a homeless shelter I would be livid. They are already at a disadvantage. Of course she would have answered it differently, because she now knew that the Investment firm was using the information for their own end; not for the students, not to make better schools and certainly not to ensure that the homeless are not taken advantage of! The directors were lied to and feel duped and for good reason.

Integrity trumps greed, but only if you have it. Your choice to not care WHO says what and WHY they are saying it, not caring if it harms those who are not part of the scam shows you (and others) have none.

You may have done great in debate club kiddo, but this is ethics and you are lacking.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

good luck, kitty – you can feel secure in the fact that you’re not alone in your complete inability to use reason, intellect, and logic – instead falling back on the emotional red herring of “Ethics.” there are millions of americans like you, which is precisely why we have many of the problems we have. side question – you seem to have a stake in this fight – do you or someone close to you work in the for profit education industry? I only ask because your responses are trending away from logic and toward emotion.

Nancy Panico was asked a simple question: is it true that “for-profit trade schools and career colleges are systematically preying upon our clients””

well, are they? it’s a question that should be answered the same if the devil asks it to you or if a saint asks it to you. ethics have nothing to do with it.

see if you can find something you disagree with in the list below:

1) Steve Eisman proposed a thesis with a number of “facts” about the for profit education industry (i’ll put FACTS in parenthesis, because these “facts” are precisely what anyone disagreeing with Eisman would try to debate.

2) Tom Matzzie (in the prior post) wrote a piece about Eisman without taking issue with a SINGLE ONE of these “facts.”

3) Sharona Coutts wrote a piece about ulterior motives, again, without taking issue with a SINGLE ONE of the critiques against for profit education companies

4) Nancy Panico answered a true/false question, which is the cause of the non-controversy Coutts is making into a controversy: “for-profit trade schools and career colleges are systematically preying upon our clients”

5) How you answer a factual question should not change depending on who answers the question, unless you are intellectually/logically/philosophically naive and unsophisticated, and hypocritical/inconsistent. ARE the colleges preying upon your clients? Either they are, or they are not. It’s not “they are if Joe GoodHeart asks” but “they are not if Johhny EvilShortSeller asks”.

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

@kid, I am a mother of a teen, from Canada. I have no stake in this other then impart ethical reasoning and voice my opinion. Neither of these articles were about the student’s plight, so get off your debating podium and enter the real world.

It IS very important to think ethically, to what Eisman has said AND the why. You may care less what his motives are. He has made the outcome for the students even more bleak as he has discredited ALL the schools and so students will also suffer. Once you taint an issue, it makes it virtually impossible to see who is right.

Now you may care less that this ‘researcher’ got information using a false background, but being she did, it is also possible that the same investment firm set out fake recruiters ahead of Early to ‘find’ during her year of research.’ Being that the private research company she named doesn’t seem to exist, perhaps her own company has other nefarious purpose. Regardless, the ‘evidence’ here is tainted and there is market manipultion once again, whether you see it that way or not.

I will put your points in **
*1) Steve Eisman proposed a thesis with a number of “facts” about the for profit education industry (i’ll put FACTS in parenthesis, because these “facts” are precisely what anyone disagreeing with Eisman would try to debate.*

Ummm NO! Steve Eisman wrote the ‘thesis’ solely to manipulate the market in his favour. The fact is he has made a lot of money doing so. He doesn’t care about the students. It was an opportunity and it was opportunistic. Until the investigation is complete, I would stop using the term ‘facts’, being that the accusations he made may have been about only a small number of schools. You, in fact are saying market manipulation is ok, when it isn’t.

His ‘thesis’ when read in the senate was exactly what he had written for his speech for the Ira Sohn Research Conference in New York City on May 26th. There were no disclosures of his shorting or which schools he was shorting and which he was accusing.

The FACT that the senate has a code of ethics which should have disallowed such a speech, has ethical bearing indeed.

*2) Tom Matzzie (in the prior post) wrote a piece about Eisman without taking issue with a SINGLE ONE of these “facts.”*

I have no idea who Matzzie is. Neither you nor Felix seem to like him, so you ‘demonize’ him and now Coutts rather then make points about the schools. (doing exactly what Matzzie had done in fact… taken the focus off the schools … pot calling kettle black?)

*3) Sharona Coutts wrote a piece about ulterior motives, again, without taking issue with a SINGLE ONE of the critiques against for profit education companies*

Propublica have written articles in the past covering the known corruption in the schools. Who knows, maybe they are also starting to doubt their sources and the legitimacy of the information, given the short sellers are manipulating the media and in this case a ‘researcher’ and 20 directors of homeless shelters.

*4) Nancy Panico answered a true/false question, which is the cause of the non-controversy Coutts is making into a controversy: “for-profit trade schools and career colleges are systematically preying upon our clients”*

Being there were similar problems in the 90’s, some of the directors admit they signed the letter in support, given past knowledge, much as you might sign a petition to support a cause, which in this case was to stop targeting the homeless. If you read the bottom of the letter, there is a plea for the homeless, which means they signed it in good faith that something would be done for the homeless being targeted, NOT to be used to further manipulte the market.

Here is my question. After a year of supposed ‘research’, why was the question not, ‘which schools were targeting and WHEN were your shelters targeted’, and have each school make their own declaration outlining the occurances and schools involved and sign it.

That would be in a ‘researcher’s’ interest as well as interest to the DOA. 20 separate signatures on 20 different and factual declarations exposing the schools involved would be evidence. As it stands this looks like exactly what it. A paintbrush that paints all of the schools as bad… manipulated by the shorting investment firms. A worthless petition tainted by lies is all it is now.

*5) How you answer a factual question should not change depending on who answers the question, unless you are intellectually/logically/philosophically naive and unsophisticated, and hypocritical/inconsistent. ARE the colleges preying upon your clients? Either they are, or they are not. It’s not “they are if Joe GoodHeart asks” but “they are not if Johhny EvilShortSeller asks”*

Given the source of the question, they are now fabricated questions, asked soley to obtain information and so there is no background. They were designed to answer a question in the Investment firms favour, not the signatories, nor the homeless, nor is the resulting document a research document. Where is her data after one year of research?

Even Robert Shireman fell prey when he mimicked what was said by Eisman in his speech. He had been meeting with Eisman and garnering information. How much credence do you think Shireman’s speech gave to the short position? This is not speculation or demonizing. This is about obvious manipulation.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

oh kitty – i give up – good luck to you. while I live in a world of reason, logic, and intellectual consistency, you seem to occupy an entirely different intellectual plane, where questions can’t be answered and the motives behind one’s thesis effect the body of the thesis.

here’s my final thought, that you still don’t grasp – it’s the same as the original thought back in the matzzie thread: you keep railing on about market manipulation. Steve Eisman made it very very easy for his critics – he TOLD them what his incentives were, so that they should know to be extra careful to look for flaws in his logic and arguments. despite this, neither Tom Matzzie nor Sharona Coutts bothered to attempt to refute a SINGLE one of Eisman’s arguments. These are the facts. NONE of the critiques by the “evil short sellers” like Eisman were even attempted to be debated by Matzzie nor Coutts, which is precisely why Felix wrote these posts, and I continue to bother to attempt to explain it to you.

best of luck.

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

Tofel seems to prowl the internet looking for any possible reference to Propublica so that he can defend his employer. Good work again Felix!

Posted by Salmonfan | Report as abusive

Kid, I need no luck. My ethics remain intact and although you feel a need to reproduce the same argument over and over, I am not moved by your ‘facts.’ I was only interested in the fox being asked to guard the henhouse and ethics being thrown out the window.

I understood your (supposed)position and where it came from, from the beginning, but see it more as a defense of Eisman, given your admiration of his ilk and a demonization of the authors rather then some (supposed)interest in the students or the reason for the inquiry.

I think you are both full of it in that regard, so PLEASE do not bother to explain your (supposed) logic.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/