Cheers!

Found the report interesting. Being your first I hope it is a homerun-slam dunk. You appear to have done the DD. Good “sleuth”ing.

I love exposé style reporting and look forward to your future reports. Also I acknowledge the rights of anyone to short any stock in the markets. It is the odd synergy of the 2 I have issue with not the idividual parts – shorting and negative sleuth reporting.

This is just one man’s opinion and I am not making accusation of any wrong doing by Mr. Cuban or Mr. Carey. I welcome comments that can poke holes in my logic. I always enjoy the reponses that DO NOT agree with me more that those that do agree with me.

I see a huge contradiction in providing information on what you personally believe to be a scam (in escence, posting a “do not enter” sign) but then on the other hand potentially making a financial gain (shorting the company stock). Essentially, it seems, indirectly partaking in the named fraudulent operation and knowingly so. This is even magnified by the fact of Mr. Cuban shorting the shares PRIOR to the report that it appears he has direct input.

In the report D’Arnaud-Taylor and his wife are demonized for selling the company shares into the open market, and maybe rightly so. But how are the buyers of Mr. Cuban’s short sell any less a victim than the buyers of D’Arnaud-Taylor sells? If both are aware that the underlining business that the shares represent to be a perversion of truth are they not each participants? (though Mr. Cuban on lower level understandably so). Is not the instrument of the fraud the stock itself?

Does Mr. Cuban bother to call the person about to buy shares and inform them of the information he has in hand PRIOR to making the short sell? Does it bother him who might be on the other end of the transaction?

Here is a analogy. I become aware of a supplier of vitamins and supplements. I order some samples but after doing a little scientific testing find in reality nothing more than placebo. Still I order a big shipment on credit with the supplier. Then sell the product on Ebay. After doing so I contact my buddy at XYZ Daily with the scoop. The supplier is turned into the FDA and shut down. I don’t have to pay back my credit. I reimburse the buyers that bother to go through the effort which turns out to be about half and pocket the difference. And everyone should be thanking me for exposing a fraud.

It seems the reporting is more – “Hey here is the latest scheme. Participate while you can, I am.” opposed to – “Mr. Yuck says don’t drink.”

All just my opinion.

Posted by: elvistcb35_77 [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 10, 2006 09:57 PM

Here is another analogy.

I see a group of thugs burglarizing the local jewelry store. But they make off before I can stop them. Thinking quick I call the police, report the crime and tell them I can pick these guys out in a lineup. The cops tell me to wait at the scene and they will be there in 5 mins. Spotting my chance I quickly select a nice expensive watch for myself. The cops show up, the bad guys are nabbed, I am the local hero, and the old guy who owns the store sends me a nice bottle of wine. Oh, and I have a nice new watch.

JMHO

Posted by: elvistcb35_77 [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 10, 2006 10:16 PM

The stock market is a gamble. So, its anyones fault for being invested in a stock that Mark ends up shorting. Not fair? Oh well!

If Sharesleuth or Netscape or whomever sees value in “owning” rights to somebody’s output, how is that a bad thing? I would gladly expunge google, un-publish my site & cash the checks.

Cuban is exactly right about the hypocrisy. It’s exactly why we started http://www.viewfromsiliconvalley.com in the first place.

Keep it up!

If Sharesleuth or Netscape or whomever sees value in “owning” rights to somebody’s output, how is that a bad thing? I would gladly expunge google, un-publish my site & cash the checks.

Cuban is exactly right about the hypocrisy. It’s exactly why we started http://www.viewfromsiliconvalley.com in the first place.

Keep it up!

They convicted Winans of insider trading, even though he wasn’t an insider on any of the stocks he was trading. He just knew what *public* gossip was going to be publicized.

That’s not insider trading, that’s embezzling. His trades made the subscribers’ trades just a tad less profitable, so he was stealing from the WSJ.

On the other hand, if I were to subscribe to the WSJ, my mail doesn’t arrive until 3:30 PM. His trades wouldn’t have affected me any more than those of readers who bought a copy at CVS at 9 AM. Should those readers be convicted of insider trading?

A tout’s stock recommendations are much more credible if he’s putting his mouth where his money is. If Warren Buffet files notice Monday that he’s bought 20% of International Gadget and Flange, it’s probably going to be profitable to buy IGF 5 minutes after it gets out, and hold for a week or a month until the Buffet Bump in the stock price develops.

A disclaimer at the bottom of every page isn’t going to hurt – and it might help. Sharesleuth may be a boon to business journalists – but it won’t be a boon to publishers like Dow Jones, Steve Forbes, or Time Warner – and they have friends in regulatory places. Watch your back, Mark.