Comments on: Short-seller demonization watch, ProPublica edition http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16847 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:58:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16847 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.

]]>
By: Salmonfan http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16840 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:10:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16840 Tofel seems to prowl the internet looking for any possible reference to Propublica so that he can defend his employer. Good work again Felix!

]]>
By: KidDynamite http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16782 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:43:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16782 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.

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16777 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:44:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16777 @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.

]]>
By: KidDynamite http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16761 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:16:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16761 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”.

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16756 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:16:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16756 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.

]]>
By: KidDynamite http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16719 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:08:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16719 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

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16711 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:33:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16711 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?

]]>
By: HBC http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16690 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:57:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16690 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.

]]>
By: greyeconomics http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/07/12/short-seller-demonization-watch-propublica-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-16684 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:23:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=4666#comment-16684 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.

]]>