A list not worth saving

And…

Adieu.

Never has a story hit my feed reader from so many angles, and so often. I can’t even sort through what is simply an update to a previous article, and what is new.

Nevertheless, Mark Cuban has been accused of insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Cuban has released a brief statement via his attorneys.

I could certainly be wrong, but at first blush the whole thing stinks. The timing is prescient - right in the middle of backlash against the SEC, and calls for investigations against Congress persons who may have been tangled up in mortgage deceit. The target is ripe for distraction creation - Mr. Cuban is extremely outspoken, a very public face, and can easily afford the disgorgement and fines posed for in the complaint without blinking an eye. It makes for quite the display (as the number of news sources covering the issue attests to) - a highly effective sidebar. Further, few are making hay of the bigger story - Mamma.com was always a problem child, as this WSJ snippet points out. How could the SEC take the word of anyone at a company so embroiled in such far-reaching scandal?

I don’t mind playing by the rules because I consider learning said rules, how they work, and their true intent half the fun. I consider those who don’t lazy.

I don’t think Mark Cuban is the lazy type.

UPDATE: A slightly different SEC angle.

Liz Moyer asked the question, albeit in past tense.

Giving lenders a whole lot of leeway at the expense of investors, I suspect.

Mark Cuban has an interesting post on shorting stocks, entitled I feel so dirty….Naked Shorts.

While most of Mark’s post targets SEC rules regarding stock loan regulation and its related market impact, I am not going to argue with him about shorting as he is right on target (most of the time). I short stocks as well - in fact I short more stock than I buy. Reason being something similar to what Mark says about bias.

Analysts heavily weight recommendations towards the long side. I think the balance of positive to negative recommendations is something like 15:1, but don’t quote me on it (just correct me - I’ll learn something new).

Everyone looks at bears as pessimists. I look at them as opportunists. If everyone is consistently long biased (and they are, right up until a crash), then the general market trend should be up. Now if a stock starts skidding, it is bucking the market forces. All the long bias isn’t helping, and that means it is in trouble.

I short stocks AFTER they have started their downward moves. What I do as far as the size of the position, setting stops, etc. is beyond the scope of this post, but let’s just say I am careful.

It works.

But then again, I am not a billionaire, so if anything here falls contrary to what Mark has said in his post, take his advice.