In a lecture that he gave in Copenhagen, Denmark, German financial journalist Lars Schall shows that the claim put forward by Wall Street player / bestselling author Jim Rickards that he has been “rigorous and scientific about the evidence” re 9/11 insider trading is merely a lousy joke.
By Lars Schall
Here you can watch the lecture on “Informed 9/11 Terror Trading”:
“Informed 9/11 Terror Trading” – Lars Schall Responds To Jim Rickards’ Limited Hangout
- Posted on Jan 2, 2015
Lars Schall at the Open Mind Conference 2014.
Lars Schall is a freelance financial journalist from the Ruhr Area in Germany. He studied journalism at the Technical University of Dortmund and at the University of Tennessee in the US.His main areas of focus are energy, precious metals, monetary systems and geopolitics. He is also interested in the importance of the global drug traffic as a provider of cash flow for the banking system.This led to his research into the events of September 11, 2001. He is the author of the book “Mordanschlag 9/11”. He contributes to several internationally renowned media, including Asia Times Online and is a frequent guest on Russia Today and other TV channels.His website can be found at http://www.larsschall.comThe lectureThere can be no dispute that speculative trade put options, that is, when a party bets that a certain stock will drop abruptly in value, spiked in the days around September 11, 2001, even if the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the 9/11 Commission won’t admit it. A lot of people must have had advance warning of the terror attacks as they cashed in to the tune of millions of dollars.
The Conference Speakers were:
- Ingunn Sigurdsdatter (NO)
- Max Igan (AU)
- Ole Dammegård (ES)
- Lars Schall (D)
- Charles Shaw (US)
- Olle Johansson (SE)
Moreover, in addition to my presentation, here’s what Paul Zarembka, Professor for Economics at the State University of New York, has told me about Jim Rickards’ “limited hangout”:
I have now read Rickards’ chapter that you were kind enough to forward. I don’t see it as even a ‘limited hangout’ of the trading issue unless we reduce that phrase to recognition of good work done by Poteshman and Chesney et al.
Even for those two works, the references are strange. Poteshman’s is stated to be published by the U. of Chicago, but that is not the way academic publication is cited. The proper reference is the J. of Business which happens to be published by U. of Chicago for decades. And Chesney et al’s work is cited without their names and as if the Institute produced it, rather than independent academics employed there. The author works so closely to intelligence agencies that he is characterizing academic work as if it were administratively like those agencies, i.e., any work is the responsibility of the publisher/agency, not individual scholars.
Anyway, what I think can be learned is that the intelligence agencies are taking insider trading seriously, unlike the Commission Report (who Rickards applauds … except — pp. 25-27 — on insider trading). On the bottom of p. 23 Rickards indicates that the Commission knew of Poteshman’s work — so why not cite it as “forthcoming” (in appeared in the same year, I believe within one quarter of each other) and deal with it? (The Commission, of course, also ignored many reports of hijackers being alive after 9-11.)
He raises the issue of signal amplification. I am not convinced, but if correct, it would imply much less money earned by nefarious characters than would otherwise be the case: much of the earnings would go to those follow like sheep. In any case, Rickards does not even cite the background, unpublished, work behind the Commission Report which claimed that many of the purchasers of AA options were interviewed and stated that they followed the newsletter that was cited; i.e., whoever they were that were NOT the sheep of alleged signal amplification.
An interesting claim is his assertion that the his system MARKINT flashed “red” on August 7, 2006 for American Airlines. Unfortunately, Chesney’s work on AA goes only to April 2006 (if I have not missed subsequent work) so we cannot cross-check this.
No where in the chapter is there any evidence provided of WHO were the insider traders. This absence is hardly surprising but needs to be recognized.