If they are a matter of public record and have nothing to do with intelligence-gathering, yes - yes they should be named and quoted in detail.
Do you trust the 9/11 report not to include cover-ups? If not, you should insist on knowing which investment newsletter made this reccomendation.
You should insist on knowing if such reccomendations moved markets that much in the past.
You should insist on knowling who bought the options.
The whole piont is that the episode smells very very bad. It still smells very very bad. Until we know who reccomended and who bought, it will continue to smell very very bad.
To you, obviously.
To someone who's trying to setup a bear raid against weeks of accumulating short selling, it smells like a hedge strategy.
And by the way, it worked, in exactly the way a hedge is supposed to work when options are employed as a hedge.
The company in question went long on a short-beaten sector stock, while putting up short insurance (via puts) simultaneously.