View Single Post
Old 03-20-2013, 11:07 AM   #26
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
Idiot.

On 9/11 AA 11 crashed the offices of Marsh & McLennan in WTC 1. Curious no? that M & M also had the second highest number of put options in the days before 9/11. In other words, someone was betting that M&M's stock would fall. It did.

You and W*gs want to believe this was just coincidence. But three published academic studies of insider trading concluded the pre 9/11 put and call options was not just chance. The statistical certainty of insider trading was 99%.

The first study concluded that the data were “consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.” 1.

The second paper, by the Swiss Banking Institute, reached the same conclusion. 2.

A third study looked at the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and found “abnormal trading volumes" in both put options and call options in the days before the attacks. The authors concluded that there was “credible circumstantial evidence to support the insider trading claim.”3.



1. Allen M. Poteshman, “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” Journal of Business, 2006, vol. 79, no. 4, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/503645.
2. Marc Chesney, et al., “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets,” Social Sciences Research Network, 13 January 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1522157.
3. Wing-Keung Wong, et al, “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?” Social Sciences Research Network, April 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1588523.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote