Posted on 06/06/2002 2:29:38 PM PDT by It'salmosttolate
So where is this in depth research that supports the claim that he sold his children's accounts on 9/10?
Your post even states the sale took place on 9/18.
What is it that you would like me to further research?
You are incorrect.. He called his broker while the market was still open. The lack of selling didnt have anything to do with the market being closed. It had to do with technicalities surrounding the trust account. He TRIED to sell the positions. The broker couldn't get it done.
I keep seeing people talking about how he didn't sell until 9/18 as if that is a big deal..It isn't....He tried to sell, the broker couldn't, he sold when the market reopened. It's not like he could sell the positions on 9/11 or 9/12 or 9/13 etc. While he was telling everyone to buy stocks, he was selling. While he was telling everyone to buy stocks..he had at least 2 million in short positions.
So does this guy who was with Elgindy since the inception of the website.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17575598
What does he know that you don't know or won't admit?
You are the one that made reference to an "article", remember? You said the WSJ said "such and such".
I asked if you would post the article (because I thought the details you posted were inaccurate) and offered to post in response other articles that describe details different than your posted claim.
You have posted no supporting documentation or links.
I don't know which article you are referring to when you ask me: "Where in the article does it state he notified his broker after the close", since I did not reference an article.
Are you able to provide the article that you claim was in the WSJ that said he sold on the 10th?
"...unless you know something I don't. Is that why you're defending him"
I don't know much, but I clearly know a lot more than you. For starters I know the difference between insisting on accuracy when making allegations and "defending him".
I know the difference between 9/10 and 9/18.
I know that if the WSJ has ever reported that the sale of his children's accounts took place on 9/10 that I did not read that article.
I know that several other sources reported that the sale took place on a date other than 9/10.
OK, it is reported that there was at least one call to the broker before the market close on 9/10 regarding the children's account. It is also reported that there were more than one calls that day to that broker. It is also reported that there was an appointment scheduled for 9/11 to effect the liquidation of the account.
But, however anyone chooses to interpret the reported information, there were no sales reported to have been done in these accounts on 9/10.
I keep seeing people talking about how he didn't sell until 9/18 as if that is a big deal..It isn't....He tried to sell, the broker couldn't, he sold when the market reopened. It's not like he could sell the positions on 9/11 or 9/12 or 9/13 etc. While he was telling everyone to buy stocks, he was selling. While he was telling everyone to buy stocks..he had at least 2 million in short positions.
We obviously disagree on the motives behind the reported behavior. But, all we have heard so far is the prosecutor's accusations and reckless rumors.
You seem to have your mind made up about this guy's motives. Lots of folks don't like him because of his trading style over the past few years.
You say he was "...telling everyone to buy stocks...", but my view is different. Everyone knew him to be a professional shorter, he always had several million in the market on the short side, I did read a post of his where he appealed to folks not to take advantage of the attack with additional short selling.
Do you have any credible supporting evidence to support your inflammatory statements about this guy?
Clearly you have it in for him. Why is that?
He had an appointment scheduled for 9/11. Why did he call the day before to try to get the account liquidated instead of waiting one day. The broker was sufficiently concerned about the circumstances to have called the Feds...yet you think it is normal course of business...It was suspicious to his own broker who obviously had many dealings with Elgindy, yet you find it to be normal course of business. I guess the broker knows more than you.
I don't know the answer to that, but you and others are prepared to jump to the conclusion that this somehow proves the allegation that he was aware of the attacks.
The broker was sufficiently concerned about the circumstances to have called the Feds...yet you think it is normal course of business...It was suspicious to his own broker who obviously had many dealings with Elgindy, yet you find it to be normal course of business. I guess the broker knows more than you.
I agree, it is suspicious. I don't know that it was normal course of business. I think it makes sense to allow for that as a distinct possibility.
I do know for a fact that had he or any pro trader known about the attacks and wanted to profit by them, then there are many many ways to have traded to specifically maximize the resulting profits. There have been no reports that he did anything along those lines.
So far, that has not been supported with anything.
This guy called multiple brokers everyday, that is what he did all day.
A federal case against a high-profile message board stock-picker wound to a close last week when Anthony Elgindy pleaded guilty to a fraud charge.
The conviction renews credibility questions about the self-styled scam-stock vigilante, whose brushes with securities regulators have been chronicled here in the past. But the latest development only reinforced his followers' faith in Elgindy, a San Diego-based short-seller who gained notoriety for his colorful posts on stock message board Silicon Investor.
Elgindy, 32, pleaded guilty on Feb. 24 on one count of mail fraud under a nine-count indictment handed up last year to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas. The charges related to checks Elgindy allegedly received from Bear Stearns (BSC:NYSE - news) and Barron Chase Securities while he was simultaneously receiving disability benefits from MassMutual. A trial was to begin this month on the charges.
Elgindy, who faces sentencing on May 15, is likely to do about six months in prison, followed by probation, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jarvis says. Elgindy's lawyer didn't immediately return calls seeking comment.
Elgindy goes by the handle "anthony@pacific" on the message boards and is a former Nasdaq market maker and retail broker who claims to uncover scam stocks. But the fraud charges raised questions about his credibility, as did a fine leveled against him in 1997 by the National Association of Securities Dealers, and the revocation of his NASD registration in 1998.
In a statement posted Thursday morning on Silicon Investor, Elgindy wrote, "I gave up fighting. I capitulated and accepted a deal, stating that while suffering from Severe Depression in 1994 I accepted approx 50K in disability benefits, that I was not entitled to. ... Since I now accept this guilt, I'm hoping that you can also."
But Elgindy's faithful followers, many of whom Elgindy had attracted on his thread on Silicon Investor and who later joined Elgindy at his private, for-pay stock-picking site launched last May, were unfazed. "I don't know one person who doesn't have skeletons in his/her closet," wrote jjetstream.
"There is no higher calling in life than to be a teacher," wrote Cube. "Yeah, you've made us all a ton of money, but most importantly you have taught us. That is something none of your critics can claim."
Have it however you so choose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.