Bin Laden Shorted Reinsurance Companies

[WWSituation]

There are unconfirmed reports that Bin Laden's investment firm (the one he owns) shorted 3 reinsurance companies before the attacks last Tuesday.

This is easily confirmable in time...I wonder if there is any credibility to the reports.

[Oh Yeah]

He owns an investment firm?? That alone sounds highly unlikely to me.

[Anonymous]

The newspapers said that he inherited about $300M and was heavily into investments before he joined Afghan mudjaheds by financing them and helping with the arms and amo. I wouldn't be surprised that he decided to make a safe bet and get some return on his investment.

[WWSituation]

What is so hard to believe about it? Do you think he's going to hand over his money to some broker at Merill?

This is part of the Hippocracy.

Also, few people are mentioning how the US helped to fund the Taliban's fight against the USSR. They must have a short memory.

[The Mister]

On 2001-09-17 15:58, WWSituation wrote:
This is part of the Hippocracy.

<font size=2>Rule by hippopotamus? :wink:

[Oh Yeah]

Is there some kind of a stupidity anti-filter on this new software? People like WinWin and The Mister, who used to sound relatively intelligent in the old forum, are starting to lose it.

First of all, it's hypocrisy. Second of all, what hypocrisy??

All I said was, I doubt bin Laden owns an investment firm. In fact, I doubt it very strongly. He may have made investments, but I don't think he OWNs an investment firm.

Also, I have heard more than one report mentioning the Afghan - Soviet connection.

Whaddup?

[Oh Yeah]

LOL The Mister, I posted my message before your reply.

WinWin, I think it was Afghanistan vs. the Soviets. I don't think the Taliban was in power then.

[The Mister]

On 2001-09-17 16:14, Oh Yeah wrote:
Is there some kind of a stupidity anti-filter on this new software? People like WinWin and The Mister, who used to sound relatively intelligent in the old forum, are starting to lose it.

<font size=2>How do you mean?

You don't like the lyrics?

[Oh Yeah]

Uh, I was a little befuddled by them. And I was not too excited about you listing names of actuaries in the WTC when I was still waiting to hear if some of them were okay.

But I have to respect anyone who has a deep appreciation of the music of Aha. What album was that song on?? I don't think I've ever heard of it?

[Oh Yeah]

The previous post was in response to The Mister.

[The Mister]

On 2001-09-17 16:33, Oh Yeah wrote:
And I was not too excited about you listing names of actuaries in the WTC when I was still waiting to hear if some of them were okay.

<font size=2>Well, I did take Patience's advice and stop posting them a few at a time.

But I have to respect anyone who has a deep appreciation of the music of Aha. What album was that song on?? I don't think I've ever heard of it.

Scoundrel Days, their 2nd album (1986). Not available domestically any more, but there are sound bytes @ CDNow (and of course entire songs elsewhere).

[Aaron Brachowitz]

http://biz.yahoo.com/apf/010918/attacks_suspicious_trading_2.html

This link describes heavy put writing and short-selling on airline stocks just prior to the attacks.

Leaving aside the question of whether the terrorists were trying to generate cash from their activities, consider this question: If you had legitimately purchased puts on airline stocks just before this happened, would you have exercised them yesterday? Would you be able to use the money with a clear conscience? It seems like donating it to the relief effort would be the only acceptable option, after recovering your costs and covering the taxes.

[WWSituation]

I miss one day and all of my spelling mistakes are exposed!!!

Jeez, I wish this thing had spell check!!!

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Are you sure about that? Your profits are the direct result of a terrorist attack that killed over 5,000 people. I don't think anyone with an ounce of humanity could keep that money.

[WWSituation]

Why is is a conscience issue? Selling puts has no impact on the airline industry. It is a transfer of money between two parties. There is a winner and a loser.

Don't think for a second that if the stock went through the roof because of some other circumstance that your position wouldn't be closed as a result of the other person's conscience.

[Guerilla poster]

I would keep the money but I don't think I would tell anyone how I made my killing.

Ultimately, I took the risk and should receive the reward.

[golgo13]

On 2001-09-20 10:55, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:
Are you sure about that? Your profits are the direct result of a terrorist attack that killed over 5,000 people. I don't think anyone with an ounce of humanity could keep that money.

Presumably, undertakers who are also "profiting" from the attack should start conducting funerals for free. Same goes for doctors, nurses & pharmaceutical companies who should also treat/provide medicines for free. And what about security guards, policemen & so on. The increased future demand for security personnel is the "direct result" of the attack. They should also work for free. And then there's G. Bush the Younger. On no account should he put himself up as a candidate in the next election, because he could get a few additional votes as a "direct result" of the "leadership qualities" he displayed in the aftermath of the attack.

[WWSituation]

There are a lot of people with very sour grapes (understandably so) about their portfolios. It is unsettling to see the other side of the zero sum game. I'm not talking about terrorists with inside information, I'm talking about people who took legitimate risks.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

GP: "Ultimately, I took the risk and should receive the reward."

That's a bogus argument. Massive terrorist strikes that kill thousands weren't part of anyone's risk/reward analysis (and hopefully still won't be). Nobody bought those options thinking, "extremely unlikely event with extremely high payoff, expected value > 0." (Or sold same options based on similar analysis)

Golgo13's comparison to people who benefit from increased demand for their products and services isn't really valid -- options are not products or services, they're wagers, pure and simple. You're betting the stock to go up or down.

The image in my mind is of someone gleefully exercising those options, eyes wide with excitement, yelling "Yesss! Jackpot! Wooooohooooooo! Show me the money, Osama!" No way -- not for me. Give it to the relief fund.

[Hierophant]

The example of the airline or reinsurance stocks are obviously emotionally loaded, and make for difficult discussion.

Suppose someone had shorted the market overall - yes, they hit the jackpot, but that doesn't mean they are gleeful about the disaster which caused the market move. At the same time, there is someone else on the other side of the contract, who is taking a beating.

Non-hedgers in the futures or options (naked writers) market are taking big risks all the time. The events of 9/11 represent the extreme outlier that some fools in the market think "will never happen to me." The pro's know the risks and presumably have the capital to withstand the losses. The amateurs get to find out whether the size of their positions were reasonable in relation to their overall portfolios.

[Actuary321]

I know I'm going to get creamed for this but how much different is this than those on the planes that bought travelers insurance?

[E. Blackadder]

That could be interesting. I bet the insurance companies would point at the "suicide clause." If there is one.

Picture this, for instance... :smile:

Lawyer for Plaintiff [on direct]: " ... so in your opinion, the hijackers [who crashed in Pennsylvania] were not committing suicide."

Expert Witness: "No. The hijackers were emphatically not intent on committing suicide for at least another hour. In fact they were rushed by those 20 passengers, which caused the plane to crash. So the suicide provision does not seem to apply here..."

[Anonymous]

I don't find that to be a bit humorous, EB. Extremely poor taste. And I'm not someone that offends easily.

[Matoro]

I thought it was funny.

[The Mister]

<font size=2>I didn't think it was tasteless either.

And, are you misspelling "maniac" on purpose?

[alex]

I think it's worth a chuckle. EB, do you think the life insurer could then subrogate against the estate of the heroes, for civil liability???

[Anonymous]

I wonder if it was your son or daughter on that plane if you would still think it was 'worth a chuckle'. Maybe I'm wound too tight for most of you, but I don't think anything about 7,000 (or 44 or 2) innocents being slaughtered is a bit funny, even peripherally.

To The Mister: Yes, I am. Maine-iac...

[The Mister]

<font size=2>If a close relative of mine were affected by the tragedy, then yes, I'd probably have a problem with just about any attempt at humor that even hinted at the current circumstances. But that's not to say that no one should use humor to deal with it. Regardless of how offended you may be by what Blackadder has written, then you should still understand that different people deal with problems in a great variety of ways, and most of them are perfectly acceptable. E.Blackadder was not making fun of the victims, which I imagine would be tasteless. He was making a sort of caricature of our legal system. It doesn't take away from the gravity of the big picture any more than sitcoms or Jay Leno or anything else that is still broadcast every night do.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-02 10:59, The Mister wrote:
...different people deal with problems in a great variety of ways, and most of them are perfectly acceptable.


Excellent point. For example, in many Arab cultures, it is perfectly acceptable to dance joyfully in the streets upon learning of the deaths of thousands of innocent office workers and rescue personnel.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[The Mister]

On 2001-10-02 11:17, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:
Excellent point. For example, in many Arab cultures, it is perfectly acceptable to dance joyfully in the streets upon learning of the deaths of thousands of innocent office workers and rescue personnel.

Sorry, couldn't resist.<font size=2>And that's why I said "most".

[Anonymous]

Point taken, The Mister. I would, therefore, like to retract my earlier statement regarding 'poor taste' and replace it with 'callous and insensitive'. Based on EB's willingness to make light of the situation, however, I remain unconvinced that he is effected so much by it that he is making an attempt to 'deal with it'. In all seriousness, could you please site an example of humor used by Leno that pertains to the current situation? Although I did not see the show myself, I did read that even SNL went out of their way to make no mention of the tragedy beyond Guiliani's opening dialogue, even going so far as to not poke fun at GWB, certainly a favorite target.

[The Mister]

<font size=2>I have to admit, I haven't watched any late-night shows (other than SNL) at all in the last few years. I guess that's what you sacrifice by getting up @ 5:00am on weekdays. :smile:

At any rate, I think that - regardless of anyone's opinion - there will always be people who make inappropriate jokes and comments, and I guess you just have to pick your fights wisely. (advice that perhaps I should take sometimes as well)

[E. Blackadder]

Hi, Maine-iac. No offense is intended. I will defend to the death (mine) your right to take offense at my posts.

The warning sign for you will be a phrase "I can see it now." or something similar.

If it matters, I regard the passengers of that flight as true American heroes. If it doesn't matter, I still do.

And I think Plaintiff would ultimately lose in the USSC by 5 to 4.

BTW, did anyone find Justice Sandra O'Connor's remarks about "losing some rights." as offensive as I did?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-02 14:57 ]</font>

[alex]

where were o'connor's comments?? I'm offended, and I don't even know what they were!

[Han Solo]

As the great Riggo once said,
"Lighten up, Sandy baby!!!"