911 الأسهم وضع الخيارات

9/11 الأسهم وضع الخيارات
كان هناك تداول مرتفع جدا في & كوت؛ خيارات الخيارات & كوت؛ على الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية وشركة الخطوط الجوية المتحدة، قبل 11 سبتمبر مباشرة. كانت هذه المقامرة فعالة أن أسعار أسهمها سوف تنخفض، وهذا هو بالطبع ما حدث بمجرد وقوع الهجمات. وهذا يدل على أن التجار يجب أن يكون لديهم معرفة مسبقة من 9/11.
هذه هي قصة معقدة، ولكن المطالبات دون & # 8217؛ ر تتطابق دائما مع الواقع.
& كوت؛ مستثمر مؤسسي واحد مقره الولايات المتحدة مع عدم وجود علاقات يمكن تصورها مع القاعدة اشترى 95 في المئة من أول يضع في 6 سبتمبر كجزء من استراتيجية التداول التي شملت أيضا شراء 115،000 سهم الأمريكية في 10 سبتمبر.
ولعل أقوى تحد لهذا الاستنتاج يأتي من البروفيسور ألين م بوتيشمان من جامعة إلينوي في أوربانا شامبين. وقرر التحقيق في هذا أكثر من ذلك، وتحليل بيانات السوق إحصائيا لمحاولة تقييم الصفقات & # 8217؛ الدلالة. ويشير البروفيسور بوتيشمان إلى عدة أسباب تدعو إلى التشكيك في حجة المعرفة المعروفة:
وعلى الرغم من وجهات النظر التي عبرت عنها وسائل الإعلام الشعبية، وأكاديميون بارزون، ومحترفون في سوق الخيارات، هناك ما يدعو إلى التساؤل حول مدى دقة الأدلة التي تفيد بأن الإرهابيين يتاجرون في سوق الخيارات قبل هجمات 11 سبتمبر. أحد الأحداث التي تلقي بظلال من الشك على الأدلة هو تحطم طائرة أمريكان إيرلاينز في مدينة نيويورك في 12 نوفمبر / تشرين الثاني. وفقا لموقع أوك على شبكة الإنترنت، قبل ثلاثة أيام من التداول، في 7 نوفمبر، لنسبة الطلب على الخيارات على الأسهم عمرو كان 7.74. واستنادا الى التصريحات التي ادلى بها حول العلاقات بين نشاط سوق الخيارات والارهاب بعد وقت قصير من 11 ايلول / سبتمبر، كان من المغري الاستدلال على هذه النسبة من احتمال ان يكون الارهاب هو السبب في حادث 12 تشرين الثاني / نوفمبر. غير أن الإرهاب لم يستبعد إلا بعد ذلك. في حين أنه قد يكون هو الحال أن نسبة كبيرة جدا غير طبيعي نسبة نداء عمرو لوحظ عن طريق الصدفة في 7 نوفمبر، وهذا الحدث يثير بالتأكيد مسألة ما إذا كانت نسبة الدعوة المكالمة كبيرة مثل 7.74، في الواقع، غير عادية. وبعيدا عن حادث تحطم الطائرة في 12 نوفمبر / تشرين الثاني، فإن مقال نشر في بارون & # 8217 في 8 أكتوبر (أرفيدلوند 2001) يقدم عدة أسباب إضافية للتشكك في الادعاءات بأن من المحتمل أن الإرهابيين أو شركائهم يتاجرون خيارات عمرو و أول قبل هجمات 11 سبتمبر. بالنسبة للمبتدئين، فإن المقال يشير إلى أن أثقل تداول في خيارات عمرو لم يحدث في أرخص وأقصر مؤرخة، والتي من شأنها أن توفر أكبر الأرباح لشخص يعرف من الهجمات القادمة. وعلاوة على ذلك، أصدر محلل رقم & # 8220؛ بيع & # 8221؛ توصية بشأن مقاومة مداوم الأمعاء خلال الأسبوع السابق، مما قد يدفع المستثمرين لشراء أم عمرو. وبالمثل، فقد انخفض سعر سهم شركة "أول" مؤخرا بما فيه الكفاية ليشمل التجار التقنيين الذين قد يكونون قد زادوا من شراءهم، وتتعامل الشركات التي تتعامل بشكل كبير مع خيارات أسهمها. وأخيرا، فإن التجار الذين يجعلون الأسواق في الخيارات لم يرفعوا سعر الطلب في الوقت الذي وصلت فيه الأوامر كما لو كانوا يعتقدون أن الأوامر كانت تستند إلى معلومات سلبية غير علنية: لا يبدو أن صناع السوق يجدون التداول خارجا من العادة في الوقت الذي حدث فيه.
ومع ذلك، فإنه يقوم بعد ذلك باستنباط نموذج إحصائي، يقترح أنه يتسق مع المعرفة المسبقة بعد كل شيء:
خيارات التجار ومديري الشركات والمحللين الأمنيين ومسؤولي الصرف والمنظمين والمدعين العامين وواضعي السياسات و & # 8212؛ في بعض الأحيان يكون لدى الجمهور عامة اهتمام بمعرفة ما إذا كان تداول الخيارات غير العادية قد حدث حول أحداث معينة. ومن الأمثلة البارزة على هذا الحدث هجمات 11 سبتمبر الإرهابية، وكان هناك بالفعل قدر كبير من التكهنات حول ما إذا كان نشاط السوق الخيار يشير إلى أن الإرهابيين أو شركائهم قد تداولوا في الأيام التي سبقت 11 سبتمبر على علم مسبق الهجمات الوشيكة. بيد أن هذه التكهنات جرت في غياب فهم للخصائص ذات الصلة بتداول السوق في الخيارات.
إحدى القضايا التي تزعجنا حول هذا هو عدم وجود تحليل لسلسلة الأخبار السيئة التي قدمتها شركة الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية يوم 7 سبتمبر، وهو يوم التداول قبل 10 سبتمبر، عندما حدث التداول الأكثر أهمية. أستاذ بوتيشمان قال لنا عبر البريد الإلكتروني:
وتشمل دراستي الانحدارات الكمية التي تمثل ظروف السوق على مخزونات معينة. وبالتالي، هناك على األقل تصويب من الدرجة األولى لألخبار السلبية التي كانت تخرج في 7 أيلول / سبتمبر بشأن مقاومة األمطار.
ولكن يمكنك حقا علاج الأخبار ببساطة؟ البروفيسور بول زارمبكا يؤيد الادعاءات قائلا:
يجد بوتيشمان. هذه المشتريات [من الخيارات على الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية الأسهم]. كان احتمال واحد فقط في المئة من حدوث ببساطة بشكل عشوائي.
لكننا لا نقول أنهم كانوا عشوائيا، بل ربما كانوا رد فعل عقلاني على الأخبار السيئة الهامة التي سلمت في اليوم السابق. يقول بوتيشمان أساسا (فيما يتعلق عمرو) هو أن الناس اشترى الكثير من يضع لذلك أن يفسر من قبل 9/7 الأخبار، لذلك مطلوب تفسير آخر، ولكن كيف يمكنك أن تقول أنه من دون تحليل الأخبار نفسها؟ بعد كل شيء، إذا كان هذا الخبر & # 8220؛ نحن & # 8217؛ ليرة لبنانية ربما تكون مفلسة في ستة أشهر & # 8221؛ فمن المحتمل أن تكون نسب الفائدة أكثر أهمية، كما أن نموذج بوتيشمان & # 8217 قد أعطى تأكيدا أكبر على & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ & نبسب؛ نحن دون & # 8217؛ ر أعتقد ذلك. من الواضح أن أخبار عمرو كانت أقل أهمية، ولكننا ما زلنا نقول أنه لا يمكنك الحكم بدقة على أهمية هذه الصفقات حتى تأخذها بعين الاعتبار.
وقد اشترى مستثمر مؤسسي واحد مقره الولايات المتحدة لا علاقة له بتنظيم القاعدة 95 في المئة من قانون الاستثمار في 6 سبتمبر كجزء من استراتيجية التداول التي شملت أيضا شراء 115،000 سهم أمريكي في 10 سبتمبر. وبالمثل، فإن الكثير من التداول الذي يبدو مشبوها في الولايات المتحدة يوم 10 سبتمبر تم ارجاعه الى نشرة تداول الخيارات الامريكية مقرها الولايات المتحدة، وفاكس للمشتركين يوم الاحد، 9 سبتمبر، الذي أوصى هذه الصفقات.
سيظهر 6 سبتمبر سيصبح تلقائيا بشكل كبير، ثم، على الرغم من أن مستثمرا واحدا فقط يقال وراءهم. ولكن هل هذا يعني حقا أنك يمكن أن تشير رياضيا أنه من المرجح أن المستثمر كان على علم مسبق من 9/11، دون النظر في ظروف السوق الأخرى والمعلومات المتاحة في ذلك الوقت؟

9/11 الأسهم وضع الخيارات
تفاصيل مقيدة للتجارة الداخلية من الداخل الرصاص مباشرة إلى وكالة المخابرات المركزية أعلى الرتب.
فتو - 9 أكتوبر 2001 & # 150؛ على الرغم من تجاهلها بشكل موحد من قبل وسائل الإعلام الأمريكية الرئيسية، وهناك أدلة وفيرة وواضحة على أن عددا من المعاملات في الأسواق المالية أشارت محددة (الجنائية) المعرفة غير معروفة لهجمات 11 سبتمبر على مركز التجارة العالمي والبنتاغون. في حالة واحدة على الأقل من هذه الصفقات - التي تركت جائزة 2.5 مليون $ لم يطالب بها - الشركة تستخدم لوضع & # 147؛ وضع خيارات & # 148؛ على سهم الخطوط الجوية المتحدة، حتى عام 1998، يديرها الرجل الذي يشغل الآن منصب المدير التنفيذي الثالث في وكالة المخابرات المركزية.
حتى عام 1997 أ. & # 147؛ طنان & # 148؛ وكان كرونجارد رئيسا للبنك الاستثماري A. B. بنى. A. B. وقد حصل بنك براون على جائزة براون في عام 1997، ثم أصبح كرونجارد جزءا من عملية الدمج، وهو نائب رئيس مجلس إدارة بنك "تروست أب براون"، وهو واحد من 20 مصرفا أميركيا رئيسيا يدعى السناتور كارل ليفين هذا العام وربطها بغسل الأموال. وكان منصب كرونجارد الأخير في بانكر & أمب؛ # 146؛ s الثقة (بت) للإشراف على & # 147؛ علاقات العملاء الخاصة. & # 148؛ وبهذه الصفة كان له علاقات مباشرة مباشرة مع بعض أغنى الناس في العالم في نوع من العمليات المصرفية المتخصصة التي حددها مجلس الشيوخ الأمريكي والمحققون الآخرون على أنها وثيقة الصلة بغسل أموال المخدرات.
نطاق تجارة المعرف المعروفة.
قبل النظر إلى مزيد من هذه العلاقات من الضروري أن ننظر إلى المعلومات التداول من الداخل التي يتم تجاهلها من قبل رويترز، نيويورك تايمز وغيرها من وسائل الإعلام. ومن المؤكد جيدا أن وكالة المخابرات المركزية منذ فترة طويلة رصدت هذه الصفقات & # 150؛ في الوقت الحقيقي & # 150؛ تحذيرات محتملة من الهجمات الإرهابية وغيرها من التحركات الاقتصادية التي تتعارض مع مصالح الولايات المتحدة. وقد أبرزت القصص السابقة في فتو على وجه التحديد استخدام بروميس البرمجيات لمراقبة هذه الصفقات.
من الضروري أن نفهم فقط اثنين من المصطلحات المالية الرئيسية لفهم أهمية هذه الصفقات، & # 147؛ بيع قصيرة & # 148؛ و & # 147؛ ضع الخيارات & # 148 ؛.
& # 147؛ بيع قصير & # 148؛ هو اقتراض الأسهم، وبيعها بأسعار السوق الحالية، ولكن ليس مطلوبا لإنتاج فعلا المخزون لبعض الوقت. إذا انخفض السهم بشكل سريع بعد إدخال العقد القصير، يمكن للبائع عندئذ الوفاء بالعقد عن طريق شراء السهم بعد انخفاض السعر وإتمام العقد بسعر ما قبل التحطم. وكثيرا ما يكون لهذه العقود نافذة تصل إلى أربعة أشهر.
& # 147؛ وضع خيارات، & # 148؛ هي عقود تمنح المشتري خيار بيع الأسهم في تاريخ لاحق. مشتراة بأسعار الاسمية، على سبيل المثال، 1.00 $ للسهم الواحد، وتباع في كتل من 100 سهم. وفي حالة ممارستھا، یمنح حاملھا خیار بیع أسھم مختارة في تاریخ مستقبلي بسعر محدد عند إصدار العقد. وهكذا، يمكن استثمار 10 آلاف دولار أمريكي لربط 10،000 سهم من شركة يونايتد أو أمريكان إيرلينس بسعر 100 دولار أمريكي للسهم الواحد، ثم يكون البائع ملزما بشراءها إذا تم تنفيذ الخيار. إذا انخفض السهم إلى 50 دولارا عند استحقاق العقد، يمكن لحامل الخيار شراء الأسهم بمبلغ 50 دولارا وبيعها فورا مقابل 100 دولار أمريكي و 150 دولار أمريكي؛ بغض النظر عن مكان السوق ثم يقف. خيار الشراء هو عكس خيار الشراء، والذي هو، في الواقع، رهان المشتقات أن سعر السهم سوف ترتفع.
قصة 21 سبتمبر من قبل معهد هرتسليا للسياسة الدولية لمكافحة الإرهاب، بعنوان & # 147؛ الثلاثاء الأسود: أكبر سراح التجارة العالمية من الداخل الغش؟ & # 148؛ توثيق الصفقات التالية المتصلة بهجمات 11 سبتمبر:
- بين 6 و 7 سبتمبر، شهد مجلس شيكاغو لتبادل الخيارات شراء 4744 خيارا على يونيتيد إيرلينس، ولكن فقط 396 خيارات الاتصال & # 133؛ على افتراض أن 4000 من الخيارات تم شراؤها من قبل أشخاص لديهم معرفة مسبقة بهجمات وشيكة، هؤلاء & # 147؛ المطلعين & # 148؛ قد استفاد منها ما يقرب من 5 ملايين دولار.
- في 10 سبتمبر، تم شراء 4،516 خيارات على شركة الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية في بورصة شيكاغو، مقارنة مع 748 فقط المكالمات. مرة أخرى، لم تكن هناك أخبار في هذه المرحلة لتبرير هذا الخلل؛ & # 133؛ مرة أخرى، على افتراض أن 4000 من هذه الخيارات تمثل الحرف & # 147؛ المطلعين، & # 148؛ فإنها ستمثل مكاسب تبلغ نحو 4 ملايين دولار.
- [كانت مستويات خيارات الشراء التي تم شراؤها أعلاه أعلى بست مرات من المعتاد.]
// فرانكفورتر الجماينه تسيتونج //: - لم يحدث تداول مماثل فى شركات الطيران الاخرى فى بورصة شيكاغو فى الايام التى سبقت مباشرة يوم الثلاثاء الاسود.
- مورجان ستانلي دين ويتر & أمب؛ ، التي احتلت 22 طابقا من مركز التجارة العالمي، شهدت 2،157 من أكتوبر 45 $ خيارات شراءها في ثلاثة أيام التداول قبل الثلاثاء الأسود. مقارنة بمتوسط ​​27 عقدا في اليوم قبل 6 سبتمبر. انخفض سعر سهم مورغان ستانلي من 48.90 دولار إلى 42.50 دولار في أعقاب الهجمات. وبافتراض أن 000 2 عقد من عقود الخيارات هذه قد اشترى بناء على معرفة الهجمات التي تقترب، كان من الممكن للمشترين أن يستفيدوا بما لا يقل عن 1.2 مليون دولار. ميريل لينش & أمب؛ شركة، مقرها بالقرب من البرجين التوأمين، شهدت 12،215 أكتوبر 45 $ خيارات الشراء اشترى في أربعة أيام التداول قبل الهجمات؛ وكان متوسط ​​الحجم السابق في تلك الأسهم 252 عقدا في اليوم [زيادة بنسبة 1200٪!]. عند استئناف التداول، انخفضت أسهم ميريل من 46.88 $ إلى 41.50 $. على افتراض أن 11،000 عقود الخيار تم شراؤها من قبل & # 147؛ المطلعين، & # 148؛ فإن أرباحهم قد تكون حوالي 5.5 مليون دولار.
- يدرس المنظمون الأوروبيون الصفقات في ألمانيا ميونخ ري، سويسرا و سويس ري، و أكسا من فرنسا، وجميع شركات إعادة التأمين الكبرى مع التعرض لكارثة الثلاثاء الأسود. [فتو ملاحظة: تمتلك أكسا أيضا أكثر من 25٪ من أسهم شركة طيران أمريكان إيرلينس مما يجعل الهجمات & أمب؛ 147؛ مزدوجة و & # 148؛ بالنسبة لهم.]
في 29 سبتمبر 2001 & # 150؛ في قصة حيوية لم يلاحظها أحد من قبل وسائل الإعلام الرئيسية & # 150؛ ذكرت سان فرانسيسكو كرونيكل، & # 147؛ المستثمرين حتى الآن لجمع أكثر من 2.5 مليون $ في الأرباح التي جعلت خيارات التداول في سهم شركة يونايتد ايرلاينز قبل هجمات 11 سبتمبر الإرهابية، وفقا لمصدر مطلع على الصفقات والسوق البيانات.
& # 147؛ الأموال غير المحصلة تثير الشكوك بأن المستثمرين & # 150؛ الذين لم يتم الإعلان عن هويتهم وجنسياتهم & # 150؛ كان لديهم معرفة مسبقة بالإضرابات. & # 148؛ لا تجرؤ على الظهور الآن. وقد أدى تعليق التداول لمدة أربعة أيام بعد الهجمات إلى عدم إمكانية السحب سريعا والمطالبة بالجائزة قبل أن يبدأ المحققون النظر.
& # 147؛ & # 133؛ تم شراء خيارات سلسلة أكتوبر لشركة أول كورب في أحجام غير عادية للغاية ثلاثة أيام تداول قبل الهجمات الإرهابية بمبلغ إجمالي قدره 070 2 دولارا؛ اشترى المستثمرون عقود الخيارات، ويمثل كل منهم 100 سهم، مقابل 90 سنتا لكل منهما. [يمثل هذا 000 230 سهم]. وتباع هذه الخيارات الآن أكثر من 12 دولارا لكل منها. لا يزال هناك 2،313 ما يسمى & # 147؛ وضع & # 148؛ والخيارات المتاحة [التي تبلغ قيمتها 2.77 مليون دولار وتمثل 300 231 سهم] وفقا لمركز خيارات المقاصة كورب. & # 148؛
& # 147؛ & # 133؛ المصدر على دراية الصفقات المتحدة حددت دويتشه بنك اليكس. براون، الذراع المصرفي الاستثماري الأمريكي لعملاق الألماني الألماني دويتشه بنك، حيث كان بنك الاستثمار يستخدم لشراء بعض هذه الخيارات & # 133؛ & # 148؛ وهذه هي العملية التي يديرها كرونغارد حتى وقت قريب من عام 1998.
كما ورد في قصص إخبارية أخرى، كان دويتشه بنك أيضا مركزا لنشاط التداول من الداخل متصلا ميونخ ري. قبل الهجمات مباشرة.
وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية، البنوك والسماسرة.
فهم العلاقات المتبادلة بين وكالة المخابرات المركزية والعالم المصرفي والوساطة أمر بالغ الأهمية لاستيعاب الآثار المخيفة بالفعل من الكشف أعلاه. دعونا ننظر إلى تاريخ وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية، وول ستريت والبنوك الكبيرة من خلال النظر في بعض اللاعبين الرئيسيين في تاريخ وكالة المخابرات المركزية.
كلارك كليفورد & # 150؛ وقد كتب قانون الأمن القومي لعام 1947 من قبل كلارك كليفورد، قوة الحزب الديمقراطي، وزير الدفاع السابق، ومستشار لمرة واحدة للرئيس هاري ترومان. في الثمانينيات من القرن العشرين، كان كليفورد، بصفته رئيسا ل "بانكشاريس الأمريكية الأولى"، فعالا في الحصول على ترخيص من بنك سي آي أيه الفدرالي للرقابة على المخدرات على الشاطئ الأمريكي. مهنته: المحامي وول ستريت والمصرفي.
جون فوستر و ألين دولس & # 150؛ هذين الأخوين & # 147؛ تصميم & # 148؛ وكالة المخابرات المركزية لكليفورد. وكان كلاهما نشطين في عمليات الاستخبارات خلال الحرب العالمية الثانية. وكان ألين دولس سفير الولايات المتحدة في سويسرا حيث التقى بشكل متكرر مع القادة النازيين ورعوا الاستثمارات الأمريكية في ألمانيا. ذهب جون فوستر ليصبح وزيرا للدولة تحت دوايت ايزنهاور و ألين في العمل كمدير وكالة المخابرات المركزية تحت ايزنهاور و أطلقت في وقت لاحق من قبل جون جون جون. مهنهم: شركاء في أقوى - حتى يومنا هذا - مكتب محاماة وول ستريت من سوليفان، كرومويل.
بيل كيسي & # 150؛ وكان رونالد ريغان مدير وكالة المخابرات المركزية والمخضرم أوس الذي شغل منصب رئيس المشاحنات خلال سنوات إيران كونترا، تحت الرئيس ريتشارد نيكسون، رئيس لجنة الأوراق المالية والبورصات. مهنته: المحامي وول ستريت وول ستريت.
ديفيد دوهرتي - نائب الرئيس الحالي لبورصة نيويورك للإنفاذ هو المستشار العام المتقاعد لوكالة الاستخبارات المركزية.
جورج هربرت ووكر بوش & # 150؛ الرئيس من 1989 إلى يناير 1993، شغل أيضا منصب مدير وكالة المخابرات المركزية لمدة 13 شهرا من 1976-197. وهو الآن مستشارا مدفوعة الأجر لمجموعة كارلايل، أكبر عشر مقاول للدفاع في البلاد، التي تشترك أيضا في استثمارات مشتركة مع أسرة بن لادن.
A. B. & # 147؛ طنان & # 148؛ كرونغارد & # 150؛ والمدير التنفيذي الحالي لوكالة الاستخبارات المركزية هو الرئيس السابق لمصرف الاستثمار A. B. براون ونائب رئيس مجلس إدارة البنك السابق.
جون ديوتش - يتولى مدير وكالة المخابرات المركزية المتقاعد من إدارة كلينتون حاليا عضوية مجلس إدارة سيتي جروب، ثاني أكبر بنك في البلاد، والذي شارك مرارا وتكرارا في غسل أموال المخدرات. وهذا يشمل شراء سيتيغروب & # 146؛ 2001 للبنك المكسيكي المعروف غسل الأموال المخدرات، بانامكس.
نورا سلاتكين & # 150؛ هذا المدير التنفيذي المتقاعد من وكالة المخابرات المركزية أيضا يجلس على مجلس سيتي بنك.
موريس & # 147؛ هانك & # 148؛ غرينبورغ & # 150؛ وقد تم تعيين المدير التنفيذي للتأمين إيغ، مدير ثالث أكبر تجمع استثمار رأسمالي في العالم، كمدير محتمل من وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية في عام 1995. كشفت فتو غرينبرغ & # 146؛ s و إيغ & # 146؛ اتصال طويلة إلى وكالة المخابرات المركزية الاتجار بالمخدرات والعمليات السرية في سلسلة من جزأين توقفت قبل هجمات 11 سبتمبر / أيلول. وقد ارتد سهم إيغ's بشكل جيد بشكل ملحوظ منذ الهجمات. لقراءة تلك القصة، يرجى الانتقال إلى كوفشيا / ستوريز / part_2.html.
يتساءل المرء عن مقدار الأدلة المدمرة اللازمة للرد على ما هو الآن دليل دامغ على أن وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية عرفت عن الهجمات ولم توقفها. ومهما فعلت حكومتنا، مهما كانت وكالة المخابرات المركزية، فمن الواضح أنه ليس في صالح الشعب الأمريكي، ولا سيما أولئك الذين لقوا حتفهم في 11 سبتمبر.
[© كوبيرايت، 2001، مايكل C. روبرت أند فتو بوبليكاتيونس، كوبفشيا. كل الحقوق محفوظة. & # 150؛ يمكن إعادة طباعتها أو توزيعها لأغراض غير هادفة للربح فقط.]
القائد العام.
إزاحة بن لادنز.
بوشيز ومجموعة كارلايل.
كيف يستفيد بوش وغيره من الأنظمة السياسية السابقة من الاتصالات والوصول.
ما الذي لا يريد الأميركيين معرفته؟
فالجزاءات تسد الثغرات التي يعاني منها نائبنا من الملايين.

التداول من الداخل.
ما قبل 9/11 وضع خيارات على الشركات يصب به هجوم يشير إلى المعرفة المطلقة.
وتشير المعاملات المالية في الأيام التي سبقت الهجوم إلى أن بعض الأفراد استخدموا معرفة غير مسبوقة بالهجوم لجني أرباح ضخمة. (1) تشمل الأدلة المتعلقة بالتداول من الداخل ما يلي:
ارتفاع كبير في شراء خيارات الخيارات على أسهم شركتي الطيران المستخدمتين في الهجوم - شركة يونايتد ايرلاينز وشركة أمريكان ايرلاينز سورجس في شراء خيارات الخيارات على أسهم شركات إعادة التأمين المتوقع أن تدفع المليارات لتغطية الخسائر من الهجوم - ميونخ ري و أكسا غروب سورجس في شراء خيارات الخيارات على أسهم شركات الخدمات المالية التي تضررت من الهجوم - ميريل لينش & أمب؛ وشركة مورغان ستانلي وبنك أوف أمريكا زيادة كبيرة في المشتريات من خيارات الدعوة من مخزون من مصنع الأسلحة المتوقع أن تكسب من الهجوم - رايثيون عواصف ضخمة في مشتريات من 5 سنوات ملاحظات الخزانة الأمريكية.
وفي كل حالة، تحولت المشتريات الشاذة إلى أرباح كبيرة بمجرد أن يفتح سوق الأوراق المالية بعد أسبوع من الهجوم: استخدم خيارات على الأسهم التي يمكن أن تتضرر من الهجوم، واستخدمت خيارات الاتصال على الأسهم التي من شأنها أن تستفيد.
خيارات الشراء والدعوة هي عقود تسمح لحامليها ببيع وشراء الأصول، على التوالي، بأسعار محددة في تاريخ معين. تسمح خيارات الشراء لأصحابها بالاستفادة من الانخفاض في قيم الأسهم لأنها تسمح بشراء الأسهم بسعر السوق وبيعها بسعر الخيار الأعلى. وتسمى نسبة حجم عقود خيار الشراء لعقود خيار المكالمة نسبة الطرح / المكالمة. وعادة ما تكون النسبة أقل من واحدة، مع قيمة حوالي 0.8 تعتبر طبيعية. 2.
وشهدت شركات الطيران الأمريكية والخطوط الجوية المتحدة، والعديد من شركات التأمين والبنوك خسائر فادحة في قيم الأسهم عندما فتحت الأسواق في 17 سبتمبر. وضع خيارات - الأدوات المالية التي تسمح للمستثمرين بالاستفادة من انخفاض قيمة الأسهم - تم شراؤها على أسهم هذه الشركات في حجم كبير في الأسبوع قبل الهجوم.
الخطوط الجوية المتحدة و الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية.
وكان من بين الشركات الأكثر تضررا من الهجوم شركة الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية (أمريكان إيرلينس)، ومشغل الرحلة 11 والرحلة 77، وشركة الطيران المتحدة (أول)، ومشغل الرحلة 175 والرحلة 93. ووفقا ل كبس نيوس، في الأسبوع السابق والهجوم، وكانت نسبة وضع / دعوة لشركة الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية أربعة. 3 كانت نسبة الاستدعاء / الاتصال لشركة يونيتيد إيرلينس 25 مرة فوق المعدل الطبيعي في 6 سبتمبر.
وحدثت الزيادات في خيارات الشراء في أيام كانت غير مريحة لشركات الطيران وأسعار أسهمها.
وذكرت صحيفة بلومبرج نيوز أن الخيارات المعروضة على شركات الطيران ارتفعت إلى الارتفاع الهائل 285 مرة في المتوسط.
عندما أعيد فتح السوق بعد الهجوم، انخفض سهم الخطوط الجوية المتحدة 42 في المئة من 30،82 $ إلى 17،50 $ للسهم الواحد، وانخفض سهم الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية 39 في المئة، من 29،70 $ إلى 18،00 $ للسهم الواحد. 7.
شركات إعادة التأمين.
ومن المتوقع أن تتعرض عدة شركات في قطاع إعادة التأمين لخسائر فادحة جراء الهجوم: ميونخ ري من ألمانيا وسويسرا ري السويسرية - أكبر شركات إعادة التأمين في العالم، ومجموعة أكسا الفرنسية. وفي سبتمبر 2001، تقدر التزامات سان فرانسيسكو كرونيكل بمبلغ 1.5 مليار دولار لشركة ميونخ ري و 0.55 مليار دولار لمجموعة أكسا وخصومات تلغراف. كوك تقدر ب 1.2 مليار يورو لشركة ميونخ ري و 0.83 مليار ل سويس ري. 8 9.
وكان التداول في أسهم ميونخ ري ضعف مستوىه الطبيعي تقريبا في 6 سبتمبر و 7، وكان التداول في أسهم سويس ري أكثر من ضعف مستوىه الطبيعي في 7 سبتمبر.
شركات الخدمات المالية.
ميريل لينش ومورغان ستانلي مورغان ستانلي دين ويتر & أمب؛ و ميريل لينش & أمب؛ وكان مقر الشركة في كل من مانهاتن السفلى في وقت الهجوم. مورغان ستانلي احتلت 22 طابقا من البرج الشمالي وكان ميريل لينش مقر بالقرب من البرجين التوأمين. وكان مورغان ستانلي الذي شهد 27 خيارا على الأسهم التي اشترىها في اليوم قبل 6 ايلول / سبتمبر، شهد شراء 2،157 خيارا في الايام الثلاثة التي سبقت الهجوم. وشهدت ميريل لينش، التي شهدت 252 خيارا في المتوسط، شراء أسهمها في اليوم قبل 5 أيلول / سبتمبر، شهدت شراء 12.215 خيار شراء في الأيام الأربعة قبل الهجوم. وانخفض سهم مورجان ستانلي بنسبة 13٪ وانخفض سهم ميريل لينش بنسبة 11.5٪ عندما أعيد فتح السوق. 11.
أظهر بنك أوف أميركا زيادة بمقدار خمسة أضعاف في تداول الخيارات خلال يومي الخميس والجمعة قبل الهجوم.
وفي حين أن معظم الشركات ستشهد انخفاض أسعار أسهمها في أعقاب الهجوم، فإن أولئك الذين يعملون في مجال تزويد الجيش سيشهد زيادات كبيرة، مما يعكس الأعمال الجديدة التي كانوا على استعداد لتلقيها.
وقال رايثيون، صانع صواريخ باتريوت وتوماهوك، ان مخزونه ترتفع مباشرة بعد الهجوم. وارتفعت مشتريات خيارات المكالمة على أسهم رايثيون بمقدار ستة أضعاف في اليوم السابق للهجوم.
وقد تم تغريم رايثيون بملايين الدولارات تضخيم تكاليف المعدات التي تبيعها للجيش الأمريكي. رايثيون لديها سرية سرية، E - النظم، التي شملت عملاء وكالة المخابرات المركزية ووكالة الأمن القومي. 14.
ملاحظات الخزانة الأمريكية.
وقد تم شراء سندات الخزانة الأمريكية لمدة خمس سنوات بأعداد كبيرة بشكل غير طبيعي قبل الهجوم، وتمت مكافأة مشتركيها بزيادة حادة في قيمتها بعد الهجوم.
التحقيق سيك.
بعد وقت قصير من الهجوم تداول المجلس الأعلى للتعليم قائمة الأسهم إلى شركات الأوراق المالية في جميع أنحاء العالم للحصول على المعلومات. (16) تشير المادة المعممة على نطاق واسع إلى أن المخزونات التي أبلغت عنها اللجنة العليا للأوراق المالية شملت أسهم الشركات التالية: الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية، الخطوط الجوية المتحدة، الخطوط الجوية القارية، الخطوط الجوية الشمالية الغربية، الخطوط الجوية الجنوبية الغربية، الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية، مارتن، بوينغ، شركة لوكهيد مارتن، شركة أمريكان إكسبريس كورب، مجموعة أمريكان إنترناشيونال، شركة عمرو، أكسا سا، بنك أوف أمريكا كورب، بنك نيويورك كورب، بنك بان كورب، سيجنا جروب، سنا المالية، كرنفال كورب، تشوب غروب، جون هانكوك فينانسيال سيرفيسز، هركيوليز Inc.، L-3 كومونيكاتيونس هولدينغز، Inc.، لتف كوربوراتيون، مارش & أمب؛ مكلين، كروس.، ميتليف، بروجريسف كورب، جنرال موتورز، رايثون، دبليو آر. جريس، رويال كاريبيان كرويسس، Ltd.، لوني ستار تكنولوجيز، أمريكان إكسبريس، سيتي جروب، رويال & أمب؛ سون أليانس، ليمان براذرز هولدينغز، Inc.، فورنادو ريالتي تروست، مورغان ستانلي، دين ويتر & أمب؛ زل كابيتال Ltd.، و بير ستيرنس.
وفي 19 أكتوبر / تشرين الأول ذكرت مقالة في صحيفة سان فرانسيسكو كرونيكل أن المجلس الأعلى للرقابة، بعد فترة من الصمت، قام بعمل لم يسبق له مثيل من قبل نواب مئات المسؤولين الخاصين في تحقيقاته:
وفي بيان من صفحتين أصدرته "جميع الكيانات ذات الصلة بالأوراق المالية" في جميع أنحاء البلاد، طلب المجلس الأعلى للتعليم من الشركات تعيين كبار الموظفين الذين يقدرون "الطبيعة الحساسة" للقضية ويمكن الاعتماد عليها "ممارسة السلطة التقديرية المناسبة" ك "نقطة" والناس الذين يربطون المحققين الحكوميين والصناعة. 17.
ويوضح مايكل روبرت، وهو ضابط سابق في شرطة لوس أنجلوس، عواقب هذا الإجراء:
تفسير وإعادة تفسير البيانات.
ويظهر تحليل للتقارير الصحفية عن موضوع التداول الواضح من الداخل فيما يتعلق بالهجوم اتجاها، مع وجود تقارير مبكرة تسلط الضوء على حالات الشذوذ، وتفيد التقارير فيما بعد بأنها تعفيها. في كتابه عبور روبيكون مايكل C. روبرت يوضح هذه النقطة من خلال مقتطفات الأولى عدد من التقارير التي نشرت بعد وقت قصير من الهجوم:
ويذكر ان القفز فى شركة الخطوط الجوية المتحدة يضع خيارات 90 مرة (وليس 90 فى المائة) فوق المعدل الاعتيادي بين 6 سبتمبر و 10 سبتمبر، و 285 مرة اعلى من المتوسط ​​يوم الخميس قبل الهجوم.
- سي بي اس نيوز، 26 سبتمبر قفزة في الخطوط الجوية الأمريكية وضع خيارات 60 مرات (وليس 60 في المئة) فوق العادي في اليوم السابق للهجمات.
- كبس نيوس، 26 سبتمبر لم يحدث أي تداول مماثل على أي شركات طيران أخرى.
- تقرير بلومبرغ للأعمال، معهد مكافحة الإرهاب، هرتسليا، إسرائيل [نقلا عن بيانات من كبوي] 3 شهد مورغان ستانلي، بين 7 سبتمبر و 10 سبتمبر، بزيادة 27 مرة (وليس 27 في المئة) في شراء وضع خيارات على أسهمها. 4.
3. "ميكانيكا احتيال محتملة من بن لادن من الداخل"، معهد هرتسليا للسياسة الدولية لمكافحة الإرهاب، 22 سبتمبر 2001. مايكل C. روبرت، "القضية لإدارة بوش معرفة مسبقة من هجمات 11-11"، من ذي ويلدرنيس 22 أبريل 2002. نشر في مركز البحوث والعولمة & لوت؛ globalresearch. ca/articles/RUP203A. html> ؛.
4 - تكنولوجيا المعلومات والاتصالات، المرجع السابق. نقلا عن بيانات من مجلس شيكاغو لتبادل الخيارات (كبوي). [. ] "الإرهابيون المدربين في كبب". شيكاغو صن تايمز، 20 سبتمبر 2001، & لوت؛ سونتيميس / تيرور / ستوريز / ست-نوس-trade20.html & غ ؛. "دقق من خيارات التداول رابط لهجمات أكد"، [. ] شيكاغو صن تايمز، 21 سبتمبر 2001، & لوت؛ سونتيميس / تيرور / ستوريز / ست-فين-trade21.html & غ ؛.
روبرت ثم يوضح محاولة واضحة لدفن القصة من خلال شرح ذلك بعيدا عن شيء غير عادي. وتدعي مقال في صحيفة نيويورك تايمز في 30 سبتمبر / أيلول أن "التفسيرات الحميدة تتحول" في تحقيق المجلس الأعلى للتعليم. 20 وتلقي المقالة باللوم على النشاط في خيارات الخيارات التي لا تحددها كميا على "التشاؤم في السوق"، لكنها تفشل في تفسير سبب عدم انعكاس سعر الأسهم في شركات الطيران على نفس التشاؤم في السوق.
ولا يفسر التشاؤم السوقي على الإطلاق أن 2،5 مليون دولار من الخيارات المطروحة لم يطالب بها أحد، وهو دليل على أن المشترين في خيار الشراء كانوا جزءا من مؤامرة جنائية. 21.

البحوث العالمية.
تداول من الداخل في 9/11: تداول المضاربة في & # 8220؛ وضع خيارات & # 8221 ؛. حقائق مالية وضعت عارية.
لا يمكن أن يكون هناك نزاع أن التجارة المضاربة في خيارات وضع - حيث الرهانات الحزب أن الأسهم سوف تنخفض فجأة في القيمة - ارتفعت في أيام حوالي 11 سبتمبر 2001 - حتى لو لجنة الأوراق المالية والبورصات الأمريكية ولجنة 11/11 سوف لا أقول ذلك. وكان يجب أن يكون أكثر من عدد قليل من الناس قد حذروا مسبقا من الهجمات الإرهابية، وأنهم صرفوا إلى ملايين الملايين من الدولارات.
هل هناك أي حقيقة في الادعاءات بأن الدوائر المستنيرة حققت أرباحا كبيرة في الأسواق المالية فيما يتعلق بالهجمات الإرهابية في 11 سبتمبر 2001 على الولايات المتحدة؟
ويمكن القول إن أفضل مكان للبدء هو فحص خيارات الوضع، التي وقعت يوم الثلاثاء 11 سبتمبر 2001، إلى حد غير طبيعي، وفي البداية عن طريق البرمجيات التي لعبت دورا رئيسيا: نظام المعلومات الإدارية للمدعي العام، ويختصر باسم بروميس. [أنا]
بروميس هو برنامج البرمجيات التي يبدو أن تكون مزودة مع قدرات "السحرية" تقريبا. وعلاوة على ذلك، فهو موضوع نزاع دام عقودا بين المخترع بيل هاملتون ومختلف الأشخاص / المؤسسات المرتبطة بوكالات الاستخبارات والشركات الاستشارية العسكرية والأمنية. [1]
واحدة من قدرات "السحرية" من بروميس، واحدة يجب أن نفترض، هو أنه مجهز الذكاء الاصطناعي، ويبدو من البداية "قادرة على قراءة في وقت واحد ودمج أي عدد من برامج الكمبيوتر المختلفة أو قواعد البيانات، بغض النظر عن اللغة في والتي كانت البرامج الأصلية قد كتبت أو نظم التشغيل والمنابر التي تم بعدها تثبيت قاعدة البيانات هذه ". [2]
ثم يصبح من المثير للاهتمام حقا:
ماذا ستفعل إذا كنت تمتلك البرامج التي يمكن أن تفكر، وفهم كل لغة رئيسية في العالم، التي قدمت زقزقة الثقوب في الكمبيوتر "غرف خلع الملابس" الجميع، والتي يمكن إدراج البيانات في أجهزة الكمبيوتر دون معرفة الناس، التي يمكن أن تملأ الفراغات أبعد من ذلك التفكير البشري، وأيضا التنبؤ بما يفعله الناس - قبل أن يفعلوا ذلك؟ ربما كنت تستخدم ذلك، أليس كذلك؟ [3]
منحت، هذه القدرات يبدو بالكاد يمكن تصديقها. في الواقع، القصة الكاملة ل بروميس، الذي مايك روبرت يتطور في سياق كتابه عبور روبيكون في جميع جوانبها الغريبة والمنعطفات، ويبدو كما لو كان شخص ما قد وضعت رواية في أسلوب فيليب K ديك وويليام جيبسون. ومع ذلك، فإن ما جمعه روبرت حول بروميس يقوم على مصادر حسنة السمعة وكذلك على نتائج التحقيقات الشخصية، والتي تنتظر هيئة محلفين أن تأخذ نظرة نقدية الأولى على.
ويبدو هذا أكثر إلحاحا إذا قمت بإضافة إلى قدرات بروميس "أنه كان من المعتاد أن بروميس استخدمت لمجموعة واسعة من الأغراض من قبل وكالات الاستخبارات، بما في ذلك رصد في الوقت الحقيقي من المعاملات الأسهم على جميع المالية الكبرى في العالم الأسواق ". [4]
ولذلك فإننا نتعامل مع البرمجيات التي.
أ) يتسلل أنظمة الكمبيوتر والاتصالات دون أن يلاحظ.
ب) يمكن التلاعب البيانات.
ج) قادر على تتبع تجارة الأسهم العالمية في الوقت الحقيقي.
النقطة ج هي ذات صلة بكل ما حدث في ما يتعلق بالمعاملات التي لم تتم إزالتها تماما قبل 11 سبتمبر، [5] والتي قال الرئيس السابق لبنك ألمانيا المركزي إرنست ويلتك أنه "لم يكن من الممكن التخطيط لها وتنفيذها دون معرفة معينة ". [6]
سألت الصحفي المالي ماكس كيزر، الذي عمل لسنوات عديدة في وول ستريت كمخزون وخيارات تاجر، حول الصفقات الخيار وضع. وأشار كيزر في هذا السياق إلى أنه "تحدث مع العديد من الوسطاء في أبراج مركز التجارة العالمي في ذلك الوقت تقريبا. “I heard firsthand about the airline put trade from brokers at Cantor Fitzgerald days before.“ He then talked with me about an explosive issue, on which Ruppert elaborated in detail in Crossing the Rubicon .
Max Keiser: There are many aspects concerning these option purchases that have not been disclosed yet. I also worked at Alex Brown & Sons (ABS). Deutsche Bank bought Alex Brown & Sons in 1999. When the attacks occurred, ABS was owned by Deutsche Bank. An important person at ABS was Buzzy Krongard. I have met him several times at the offices in Baltimore. Krongard had transferred to become executive director at the CIA. The option purchases, in which ABS was involved, occurred in the offices of ABS in Baltimore. The noise which occurred between Baltimore, New York City and Langley was interesting, as you can imagine, to say the least.
Under consideration here is the fact that Alex Brown, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank (where many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers handled their banking transactions – for example Mohammed Atta) traded massive put options purchases on United Airlines Company UAL through the Chicago Board Option Exchange (CBOE) – „to the embarrassment of investigators“, as British newspaper The Independent reported. [7]
On September 12, the chairman of the board of Deutsche Bank Alex Brown, Mayo A Shattuck III, suddenly and quietly renounced his post, although he still had a three-year contract with an annual salary of several million US dollars. One could perceive that as somehow strange.
A few weeks later, the press spokesperson of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at that time, Tom Crispell, declined all comments, when he was contacted for a report for Ruppert´s website From the Wilderness, and had being asked „whether the Treasury Department or FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] had questioned CIA executive director and former Deutsche Bank-Alex Brown CEO [chief executive officer], A B ‚Buzzy‘ Krongard, about CIA monitoring of financial markets using PROMIS and his former position as overseer of Brown’s ‚private client‘ relations.“ [8]
Just before he was recruited personally by former CIA chief George Tenet for the CIA, Krongard supervised mainly private client banking at Alex Brown. [9]
In any case, after 9/11 on the first trading day, when the US stock markets were open again, the stock price of UAL declined by 43%. (The four aircraft hijacked on September 11 were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and UAL flights 175 and 93.)
With his background as a former options trader, Keiser explained an important issue to me in that regard.
Max Keiser: Put options are, if they are employed in a speculative trade, basically bets that stock prices will drop abruptly. The purchaser, who enters a time-specific contract with a seller, does not have to own the stock at the time when the contract is purchased.
Related to the issue of insider trading via (put or call) options there is also a noteworthy definition by the Swiss economists Remo Crameri, Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, notably that an option trade may be „identified as informed“ – but is not yet (legally) proven – „when it is characterized by an unusual large increment in open interest and volume, induces large gains, and is not hedged in the stock market“. [10]
Open interest describes contracts which have not been settled (been exercised) by the end of the trading session, but are still open. Not hedged in the stock market means that the buyer of a (put or call) option holds no shares of the underlying asset, by which he might be able to mitigate or compensate losses if his trade doesn’t work out, or phrased differently: one does not hedge, because it is unnecessary, since one knows that the bet is one, pardon, „dead sure thing.“ (In this respect it is thus not really a bet, because the result is not uncertain, but a foregone conclusion.)
In this case, the vehicle of the calculation was „ridiculously cheap put options which give the holder the ‘right‘ for a period of time to sell certain shares at a price which is far below the current market price – which is a highly risky bet, because you lose money if at maturity the market price is still higher than the price agreed in the option. However, when these shares fell much deeper after the terrorist attacks, these options multiplied their value several hundred times because by now the selling price specified in the option was much higher than the market price. These risky games with short options are a sure indication for investors who knew that within a few days something would happen that would drastically reduce the market price of those shares.“ [11]
Software such as PROMIS in turn is used with the precise intent to monitor the stock markets in real time to track price movements that appear suspicious. Therefore, the US intelligence services must have received clear warnings from the singular, never before sighted transactions prior to 9/11.
Of great importance with regard to the track, which should lead to the perpetrators if you were seriously contemplating to go after them, is this:
Max Keiser: The Options Clearing Corporation has a duty to handle the transactions, and does so rather anonymously – whereas the bank that executes the transaction as a broker can determine the identity of both parties.
But that may have hardly ever been the intention of the regulatory authorities when the track led to, amongst others, Alvin Bernard „Buzzy“ Krongard, Alex Brown & Sons and the CIA. Ruppert, however, describes this case in Crossing the Rubicon in full length as far as possible. [12]
In addition, there are also ways and means for insiders to veil their tracks. In order to be less obvious,
„the insiders could trade small numbers of contracts. These could be traded under multiple accounts to avoid drawing attention to large trading volumes going through one single large account. They could also trade small volumes in each contract but trade more contracts to avoid drawing attention. As open interest increases, non-insiders may detect a perceived signal and increase their trading activity. Insiders can then come back to enter into more transactions based on a seemingly significant trade signal from the market. In this regard, it would be difficult for the CBOE to ferret out the insiders from the non-insiders, because both are trading heavily.“ [13]
The matter which needs clarification here is generally judged by Keiser as follows:
Max Keiser: My thought is that many (not all) of those who died on 9/11 were financial mercenaries – and we should feel the same about them as we feel about all mercenaries who get killed. The tragedy is that these companies mixed civilians with mercenaries, and that they were also killed. So have companies on Wall Street used civilians as human shields maybe?
According to a report by Bloomberg published in early October 2001, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began a probe into certain stock market transactions around 9/11 that included 38 companies, among them: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., American Express Corp., American International Group, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Corp., Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley, General Motors and Raytheon. [14]
حتى الان جيدة جدا. In the same month, however, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper reported that the SEC took the unprecedented step to deputize hundreds, if not even thousands of key stakeholders in the private sector for their investigation. In a statement that was sent to almost all listed companies in the US, the SEC asked the addressed companies to assign senior staff for the investigation, who would be aware of „the sensitive nature“ of the case and could be relied on to „exercise appropriate discretion“. [15]
In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration. [16]
Among the reports about suspected insider trading which are mentioned in Crossing the Rubicon /From the Wilderness is a list that was published under the heading „Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?“ by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism on September 21, 2001:
Between September 6 and 7, the CBOE saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these „insiders“ would have profited by almost $5 million. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent „insiders“, they would represent a gain of about $4 million. [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.] No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million. Merrill Lynch & Co, with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day (a 1200% increase). When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by „insiders“, their profit would have been about $5.5 million. European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. (Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock, making the attacks a „double whammy“ for them.) [17] Concerning the statements of the former chairman of the Deutsche Bundesbank Ernst Welteke, their tenor in various press reports put together is as follows:
German central bank president Ernst Welteke later reports that a study by his bank indicates, „There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge,“ not only in shares of heavily affected industries such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] His researchers have found „almost irrefutable proof of insider trading“. [Miami Herald, 9/24/2001] „If you look at movements in markets before and after the attack, it makes your brow furrow. But it is extremely difficult to really verify it.“ Nevertheless, he believes that „in one or the other case it will be possible to pinpoint the source“. [Fox News, 9/22/2001] Welteke reports „a fundamentally inexplicable rise“ in oil prices before the attacks [Miami Herald, 9/24/2001] and then a further rise of 13 percent the day after the attacks. Gold rises nonstop for days after the attacks. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] [18]
Related to those observations, I sent a request via e-mail to the press office of the Deutsche Bundesbank on August 1, 2018, from which I was hoping to learn:
How did the Bundesbank deal with this information?
Did US federal agencies ask to see the study?
With whom did the Bundesbank share this information? And additionally:
Can you confirm that there is such a study of the Bundesbank concerning 9/11 insider trading, which was carried out in September 2001? If Yes: what is the title? If Yes: who were the authors? If Yes: has the study ever been made available to the public?
On August 2, I was then informed: „Your mail has been received by us and is being processed under the number 2018 / 011551.“ Ultimately, however, the press office of the Deutsche Bundesbank was only available for an oral explanation on the phone. With this explanation, I then turned to the press office of the federal financial regulator in Germany, the Bundesanstalt fur Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, BaFin, with the following e-mail – and that because of obvious reasons:
Yesterday, I sent a request (see end of this e-mail) to the press office of the Deutsche Bundesbank relating to insider trading connected to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and respectively relating to an alleged study carried by the Deutsche Bundesbank. The request carries the reference number 2018 / 011551.
The press office or respectively Mr Peter Trautmann was only available for an oral explanation. I repeat this now, because it is related to your entity. This will be followed by my further questions.
According to an oral explanation from the press office of the Deutsche Bundesbank, there has never been a detailed and official study on insider trading from the Bundesbank. Rather, there has been probably ad-hoc analysis with corresponding charts of price movements as briefings for the Bundesbank board. In addition, it would have been the duty of the Bundesfinanzaufsicht to investigate this matter. The press office of the Bundesbank was also not willing to give out any written information, not even after my hint that this alleged study by the Bundesbank has been floating around the Internet for years without any contradiction. That was the oral information from the Bundesbank press office, or respectively from Mr Peter Trautmann.
Now my questions for you:
Has the BaFin ever investigated the 9/11 insider trading? With what result? Have the results been made public? Have there not been any grounds for suspicion that would have justified an investigation, for example as damaged enterprise: Munich Re, and as buyers of put options of UAL’s United Airlines Company: Deutsche Bank/Alex Brown? Has the Deutsche Bundesbank ever enquired with BaFin what information they have regarding the 9/11 insider trading – for example for the creation of ad-hoc analysis for the Bundesbank? Have the US federal agencies ever inquired if the BaFin could cooperate with them in an investigation?
Could you reply to me in writing, unlike the Deutsche Bundesbank, please? I would be very grateful for that!
The next day I did indeed receive an e-mail concerning this topic from Anja Engelland, the press officer of the BaFin in which she answered my questions as follows:
Yes, the former Bundesaufsichtsamt fur Wertpapierhandel, BAWe (federal supervisory for securities trading), has carried out a comprehensive analysis of the operations. As a result, no evidence of insider trading has been found. Their approach and results have been published by the BAWe or BaFin in the annual reports for the years 2001 (cf S 26/27) and 2002 (cf p 156 above first paragraph). Here are the links. [See here and here.] See annual reports 2001 and 2002. Put options on United Airlines were not traded on German stock exchanges (the first EUREX options on US equities were introduced only after the attacks on 9/11/2001); there were warrants on UAL and other US stocks, but those traded only in low volumes. I personally do not know about such a request. Furthermore, the Bundesbank itself would have to comment on this. BaFin is fundamentally entitled to the exchange of information with foreign supervisory authorities, like SEC, on the basis of written agreements, so-called memoranda of understanding (MoU). Regarding potential inquiries from foreign supervisory authorities, the BaFin can unfortunately not comment, this would be a matter of respective authority. For this I ask for understanding.
Then I wrote another brief note to BaFin, „in order to prevent any misunderstanding: your answers refers, as far as I understand, solely to the financial markets in Germany and Frankfurt, or not?“ The reply from BaFin:
The answers refer to the German financial market as a whole and not only on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. In terms of the assessment of foreign financial markets, the relevant authorities are the competent points of contact.
In my inquiries, I mentioned, among other things, a scientific study by US economist Allen M Poteshman from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which had been carried out in 2006 regarding the put option trading around 9/11 related to the two airlines involved, United Airlines and American Airlines. Poteshman came to this conclusion:
„Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks.“ [19]
Another scientific study was conducted by the economists Wong Wing-Keung (Hong Kong Baptist University, HKBU), Howard E Thompson (University of Wisconsin) and Kweehong Teh (National University of Singapore, NUS), whose findings were published in April 2018 under the title „Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?“
Motivated by the fact that there had been many media reports about possible insider trading prior to 9/11 in the option markets, the authors looked in this study at the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX Index Options), in particular with a focus on strategies emanating from a bear market, namely those under the labels „Put Purchase,“ „Put Bear Spread“ and „Naked ITM Call Write“, as each of these are in accordance with the assumption that one would be betting on a general bear market if one wanted to profit in anticipation of the 9/11 event. [20]
Along these lines, the authors refer to an article which Erin E Arvedlund published on October 8, 2001, in Barron’s, the heading of which suggested precisely that thesis:
„Follow the money: Terror plotters could have benefited more from the fall of the entire market than from individual stocks.“ [21]
Basically, Wong, Thompson and Teh came to the conclusion „that our findings show that there was a significant abnormal increase in the trading volume in the option market just before the 9-11 attacks in contrast with the absence of abnormal trading volume far before the attacks“.
More specifically, they stated, „Our findings from the out-of-the-money (OTM), at-the-money (ATM) and in-the-money (ITM) SPX index put options and ITM SPX index call options lead us to reject the null hypotheses that there was no abnormal trading in these contracts before September 11th.“
Instead, they found evidence for „abnormal trading volume in OTM, ATM and ITM SPX index put options“ for September 2001, and also in „ITM-SPX index call options“ for the same month. „In addition, we find that there was evidence of abnormal trading in the September 2001 OTM, ATM and ITM SPX index put options immediately after the 9-11 attacks and before the expiration date. This suggests that owning a put was a valuable investment and those who owned them could sell them for a considerable profit before the expiration date.“
From all of this, they took the position that whilst they couldn’t definitively prove that insiders were active in the market, „our results provide credible circumstantial evidence to support the insider trading claim“. [22]
Disambiguation: „in the money“ means that the circumstances arise on which the owner of a put option is betting – the market price of the underlying asset, for example a stock (or in this case an index of shares), is lower at that moment compared to the price at the time when the transaction took place. „At the money“ means that the price of the underlying asset has remained equal or nearly equal. And „out-of-the-money“ means that the price of the underlying asset has gone up, so the opposite of what the owner of the put option was betting on took place. „In the money“: win. „Out of the money“: loss.
There are also ITM, ATM and OTM options both for trading strategies with put and call options, depending on which kind of risk one would like to take. For example, according to Wong, Thomson and Teh, the „Put-Purchase Strategy“ in the case of a downward movement of the underlying asset „is a cheaper alternative to short-selling of the underlying asset and it is the simplest way to profit when the price of the underlying asset is expected to decline“.
The use of the OTM put option compared to the ITM put option, however, offers „both higher reward and higher risk potentials (…) if the underlying asset falls substantially in price. However, should the underlying asset decline only moderately in price, the ITM put often proves to be the better choice (…) because of the relative price differential.“
That is why speculators would fare best, if they bought ITM put options, „unless the speculators would expect a very substantial decline in the price of the underlying asset.“ [23]
After they calculated such strategies in the light of the available trading data in the CBOE relating to 9/11, the three economists ultimately do not accept a possible counter-argument that their results could be attributed to the fact that the stock markets were generally falling and that there had already been a negative market outlook. Finally they pointed out: „More conclusive evidence is needed to prove definitively that insiders were indeed active in the market. Although we have discredited the possibility of abnormal volume due to the declining market, such investigative work would still be a very involved exercise in view of the multitude of other confounding factors,“ such as confusing trading strategies, „intentionally employed by the insiders“ in order to attract less attention. [24]
That would be – and if only to invalidate these scientific results once and for all – primarily a task for the SEC, the FBI and other governmental authorities of the United States. However, we will have to wait for this in vain.
I think that not less worthy of a mention is an article that the French financial magazine Les Echos published in September 2007 about a study conducted by two independent economics professors from the University of Zurich, Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini. Journalist Marina Alcaraz summarized the content of the findings in Les Echos with these words and with these explanations by Professor Chesney, which I for the first time translated into German (and do now translate from French into English):
The atypical volumes, which are very rare for specific stocks lead to the suspicion of insider trading.“ Six years after the attacks on the World Trade Center this is the disturbing results of a recent study by Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, professors at the University of Zurich. The authors, one of them a specialist in derivative products, the other a specialist in econometrics, worked on the sales options that were used to speculate on the decline in the prices of 20 large American companies, particularly in the aerospace and financial sector.
Their analysis refers to the execution of transactions between the 6th and 10th of September 2001 compared to the average volumes, which were collected over a long period (10 years for most of the companies). In addition, the two specialists calculated the probability that different options within the same sector in significant volumes would be traded within a few days. „We have tried to see if the movements of specific stocks shortly before the attacks were normal.“ We show that the movements for certain companies such as American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup, Marsh & McLehnan are rare from a statistical point of view, especially when compared to the quantities that have been observed for other assets like Coca-Cola or HP,“ explains Marc Chesney, a former Professor at the HEC and co-author of Blanchiment et financement du terrorisme ( Money laundering and financing of terrorism ), published by Editions Ellipses. „For example 1,535 put option contracts on American Airlines with a strike of $30 and expiry in October 2001 were traded on September 10th, in contrast to a daily average of around 24 contracts over the previous three weeks. The fact that the market was currently in a bear market is not sufficient to explain these surprising volumes.
The authors also examined the profitability of the put options and trades for an investor who acquired such a product between the 6th and 10th September. „For specific titles, the profits were enormous.“ „For example, the investors who acquired put options on Citigroup with an expiry in October 2001 could have made more than $15 million profit,“ he said. On the basis of the connection of data between volumes and profitability, the two authors conclude that „the probability that crimes by Insiders (Insider trading) occurred , is very strong in the cases of American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup and JP Morgan. „There is no legal evidence, but these are the results of statistical methods, confirming the signs of irregularities.“ [25]
As Alcaraz continued to state for Les Echos, the study by Chesney/Mancini about possible insider trading related to the 9/11 attacks was not the first of its kind; but it was in sharp contrast to the findings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission SEC and the 9/11 Commission, since they classified the insider trading as negligible – the trades in question had no connection to 9/11 and had „consistently proved innocuous“.
Different in the assessment is also the scientific work that Chesney and Mancini had published together with Remo Crameri in April 2018 at the University of Zurich, „Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the option markets.“ In the segment that is dedicated to the terror attacks of 9/11, the three authors come to the conclusion, that there had been notable insider trading shortly before the terrorist attacks on September 11 that was based on prior knowledge.
Without elaborating on the detailed explanation of the mathematical and statistical method, which the scientific trio applied during the examination of the put option transactions on the CBOE for the period between 1996 and 2006, I summarize some of their significant conclusions.
Companies like American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing” – the latter company is a contractor of the two airlines as aircraft manufacturer – „and to a lesser extent, Delta Air Lines and KLM seem to have been targets for informed trading activities in the period leading up to the attacks. The number of new put options issued during that period is statistically high and the total gains realized by exercising these options amount to more than $16 million. These findings support the results by Poteshman (2006) who also reports unusual activities in the option market before the terrorist attacks.[26]
In the banking sector, Chesney, Crameri and Mancini found five informed trading activities in connection to 9/11. „For example the number of new put options with underlying stock in Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch issued in the days before the terrorist attacks was at an unusually high level. The realized gains from such trading strategies are around $11 million. [27]
For both areas, the aviation and the banking sector, the authors state that „in nearly all cases the hypothesis“, that the put options were not hedged, cannot be rejected. [28]
Regarding the options traded on EUREX, one of the world’s largest trading places for derivatives, which in 1998 resulted from the merger between the German and Swiss futures exchanges DTB and SOFFEX, Chesney, Mancini and Crameri focused on two reinsurance companies, which incurred costs in terms of billions of dollars in connection with the World Trade Center catastrophe: Munich Re and Swiss Re.
On the basis of EUREX trading data provided by Deutsche Bank, the three scientists detected one informed option trade related to Munich Re, which occurred on August 30, 2001. The authors write:
The detected put option with underlying Munich Re matured at the end of September 2001 and had a strike of € 320 (the underlying asset was traded at € 300, 86 on August 30th). That option shows a large increment in open interest of 996 contracts (at 92.2% quintile of its two-year empirical distribution) on August 30th.
Its price on that day was € 10, 22. … On the day of the terrorist attacks, the underlying stock lost more than 15% (the closing price on September 10th was € 261, 88 and on September 11th € 220, 53) and the option price jumped to € 89, 56, corresponding to a return of 776% in eight trading days. … The gains … related to the exercise of the 996 new put options issued on August 30th correspond to more than 3.4 million.“ Similar is true, according to the authors, for one informed option trade on Swiss Re on August 20, 2001 with „a return of 4,050% in three trading weeks“, or „more than € 8 million. [29]
In a new version of their study that was published on September 7, 2018, the authors stuck to their findings from April 2018. They added the emphasis that in no way the profits gained with the put options to which they point could have been achieved due to sheer fortunate coincidence, but that in fact they were based on prior knowledge which had been exploited. [30]
With those results in terms of what went on at the EUREX according to Chesney, Crameri and Mancini, I again addressed the BaFin, which had written to me that for the financial centers in Germany insider trading around 9/11 could be excluded, and asked:
How does this go with your information that the federal supervisory for securities trading (BAWe) could in its comprehensive analysis not find evidence for insider trading? Do the authors, so to speak, see ghosts with no good reason?
In addition, I stated:
If it is true what Chesney, Crameri and Mancini write, or if you at the BaFin cannot (ad hoc) refute it, would this then cause the BaFin to thoroughly investigate the matter again? If the findings of Chesney, Crameri, and Mancini were true, this would constitute illegal transactions relating to a capital crime, which has no status of limitations, or not?
In case that a need for clarification had arisen at the BaFin, I added Professor Chesney to my e-mail-inquiry in the „carbon copy“ – address field, as because these were the results of his scientific work.
The response that I received from BaFin employee Dominika Kula was as follows:
As I already told you in my e-mail, the former federal supervisory for securities trading (BAWe) carried out a comprehensive analysis of the operations in 2001. As a result, no evidence of insider trading has been found. For clarification purposes, I wish to point out that violations of statutory provisions of securities or criminal law can never be excluded with absolute certainty. In order to pursue and prosecute such matters concrete evidence of an unlawful act is required … Such evidence does not exist here.
With regard to the sources you mentioned, I ask for understanding that I can neither comment on scientific analyses, nor on reviews by third parties.
Regarding the statutes of limitations for offences relating to the violation insider trading regulations trading I can give you the following information: A violation of the law to prohibit insider trading is punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years or with fines. The statutes of limitations applied for crimes carrying this kind of penalty (section 78 paragraph 3 No. 4 Penal Code) are five years. These limitations are described in the statutes of limitations (§§ 78 et seq.) (Criminal Code).
In addition, I turned to the EUREX with three questions:
How do you as EUREX comment on the findings of Messrs Chesney, Mancini and Crameri? Did you at EUREX perceive the particular trading in Munich Re and Swiss Re it in any way as strange? Have domestic (eg BAWe and BaFin) or foreign (such as the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission) authorities ever inquired if there may have been evidence of insider trading via the EUREX in connection with the 9/11 attacks?
I subsequently received the following response from Heiner Seidel, the deputy head of the press office of the Deutsche Borse in Frankfurt.
We do not give you a public written response on behalf of the Deutsche Börse or Eurex regarding the topics of your inquiry. This is for the following reason: the trade monitoring agency (HüSt) is part of the Exchange, but it is independent and autonomous. Their investigations are confidential and are carried out in close coordination with the BaFin. They are never public, a request which HüSt is therefore not meaningful.
I leave it to the reader to draw his/her conclusions from these two replies from the press offices of BaFin and Deutsche Borse. Regarding the topic of option trades related to 9/11, I once more talked with Swiss historian Dr Daniele Ganser („Operation Gladio“), by asking him this time about the importance of those put options, which were traded shortly before the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Daniele Ganser: This is an important point. This is about demonstrating that there was insider trading on the international stock exchanges before 11 September. Specifically put options, ie speculation on falling stock prices were traded. Among the affected stocks were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks.
A colleague of mine, Marc Chesney, professor at the Institute of banking at the University of Zurich, has examined these put options. You first of all have to check if there may have been international speculation that the aviation industry would be experiencing a weak period and whether accordingly also put options on Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Swiss were bought. This was not the case.
Very significant put option trades were only transacted for these two airlines involved in the attacks. Secondly, you must examine the ratio of put options to call options and look if they had also been purchased to a similarly significant extent that would constitute speculations on rising stock prices. And that is also not the case. There were only significant put options and only significant transactions for United Airlines and American Airlines.
Now you need to look further in order to see who actually bought the put options, because that would be the insider who made millions on September 11. Most people are unaware that money was also earned with the attacks on September 11. The Security and Exchange Commission, SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States, however, does not publish the information on who bought the put options, because you can do this anonymously. It is disturbing that this data is not made public.
What you have is the 9/11 Commission report, and here it is pointed out , that there has been insider trading, but that this insider trading cannot be traced to [al-Qaeda leader] Osama bin Laden, which means that it is highly unlikely that it had been Bin Laden.
Question: If this is not pursued any further, what does it mean?
Daniele Ganser: This means that the investigation of the terrorist attacks was incomplete, and always at the point where there are contradictions to the SURPRISE story, no further investigations are made. It looks very much as if one wants to examine only one story, the investigation is therefore one-sided. But this does not only apply to the put options. [31]
Interestingly enough, when Dr Ganser points out in his reply that this important data is not published, it is actually only half of the truth. لماذا ا؟ The answer is very simple and odd at the same time: David Callahan, the editor of the US magazine SmartCEO, filed a request to the SEC about the put options which occurred prior to September 11 within the framework of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The SEC informed Callahan in its reply of December 23, 2009 under the number „09 07659-FOIA“ as follows:
This letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the September 11 (9/11) Commission Report… We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed. [32]
Therefore, we will unfortunately never know exactly how the SEC and the 9/11 Commission came to their conclusions regarding the 9/11 put options trading for their final report, because relevant documents were not only held back, but also destroyed – and that in spite of an agreement between the SEC and the National Archive of the United States, in which the SEC has agreed to keep all records for at least 25 years. [33]
The 9/11 Commission report wrote this in footnote 130 of Chapter 5, which briefly focuses on the alleged insider trading:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9 / 11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face.
Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.
These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. (Joseph Cella interview (Sept 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, „Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,“ May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
The author Mark H Gaffney commented on this finding of “innocuousness”:
Notice … the commission makes no mention in its footnote of the 36 other companies identified by the SEC in its insider trading probe. What about the pre-9/11 surge in call options for Raytheon, for instance, or the spike in put options for the behemoth Morgan Stanley, which had offices in WTC 2? The 9/11 Commission Report offers not one word of explanation about any of this. The truth, we must conclude, is to be found between the lines in the report’s conspicuous avoidance of the lion’s share of the insider trading issue.
Indeed, if the trading was truly „innocuous“, as the report states, then why did the SEC muzzle potential whistleblowers by deputizing everyone involved with its investigation? The likely answer is that so many players on Wall Street were involved that the SEC could not risk an open process, for fear of exposing the unthinkable. This would explain why the SEC limited the flow of information to those with a „need to know“, which, of course, means that very few participants in the SEC investigation had the full picture.
It would also explain why the SEC ultimately named no names. All of which hints at the true and frightening extent of criminal activity on Wall Street in the days and hours before 9/11. The SEC was like a surgeon who opens a patient on the operating room table to remove a tumor, only to sew him back up again after finding that the cancer has metastasized through the system.
At an early stage of its investigation, perhaps before SEC officials were fully aware of the implications, the SEC did recommend that the FBI investigate two suspicious transactions. We know about this thanks to a 9/11 Commission memorandum declassified in May 2009 which summarizes an August 2003 meeting at which FBI agents briefed the commission on the insider trading issue. The document indicates that the SEC passed the information about the suspicious trading to the FBI on September 21, 2001, just ten days after the 9/11 attacks.
Although the names in both cases are censored from the declassified document, thanks to some nice detective work by Kevin Ryan we know whom (in one case) the SEC was referring to. The identity of the suspicious trader is a stunner that should have become prime-time news on every network, world-wide. Kevin Ryan was able to fill in the blanks because, fortunately, the censor left enough details in the document to identify the suspicious party who, as it turns out, was none other than Wirt Walker III, a distant cousin to then-president G W Bush.
Several days before 9/11, Walker and his wife Sally purchased 56,000 shares of stock in Stratesec, one of the companies that provided security at the World Trade Center up until the day of the attacks. Notably, Stratesec also provided security at Dulles International Airport, where AA 77 took off on 9/11, and also security for United Airlines, which owned two of the other three allegedly hijacked aircraft. At the time, Walker was a director of Stratesec. Amazingly, Bush’s brother Marvin was also on the board.
Walker’s investment paid off handsomely, gaining $50,000 in value in a matter of a few days. Given the links to the World Trade Center and the Bush family, the SEC lead should have sparked an intensive FBI investigation. Yet, incredibly, in a mind-boggling example of criminal malfeasance, the FBI concluded that because Walker and his wife had „no ties to terrorism … there was no reason to pursue the investigation.“ The FBI did not conduct a single interview. [34]
For this translation, I asked Kevin Ryan via e-mail if he could send me a link for his „nice detective work“. Ryan, who’s in my humble opinion one of roughly 10 people around the world who have to be taken seriously regarding 9/11, replied:
You are referring to my paper „Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11.“ [See here.] The following two references from the paper are relevant to what you are describing. [2] 9/11 Commission memorandum entitled „FBI Briefing on Trading“, prepared by Doug Greenburg, 18 August 2003, [22].
The 9/11 Commission memorandum that summarized the FBI investigations refers to the traders involved in the Stratesec purchase. From the references in the document, we can make out that the two people had the same last name and were related. This fits the description of Wirt and Sally Walker, who were known to be stock holders in Stratesec. Additionally, one (Wirt) was a director at the company, a director at a publicly traded company in Oklahoma (Aviation General), and chairman of an investment firm in Washington, DC (Kuwam Corp). Here are two other recent articles on Stratesec and its operators. [See here and here.]
The stock of Stratesec, I should add by myself, increased in value from $0.75 per share on September 11 to $1.49 per share when the market re-opened on September 17. As a firm that provides technology-based security for large commercial and government facilities, Stratesec benefited from the soaring demand of security companies right after 9/11.
It is also remarkable what Ryan wrote to me regarding a company on which he did some research, too: Viisage Corp, another high-tech security firm.
Kevin Ryan: In late 2005, George Tenet became a director for Viisage, which had been flagged by the SEC for 9/11 trading but never investigated. Viisage was led by Roger LaPenta, formerly of Lockheed.
Seven months later, in 2006, FBI director Louis Freeh also joined the Viisage board. One might think that when both the CIA director (on 9/11) and the FBI director (from 1993 to June 2001) joined a company suspected of 9/11 insider trading, we might want to go back and actually investigate the SEC’s flagging of that company. But, of course, that was not the case. In 2009, „Bandar Bush“ hired Freeh as his personal attorney.
Freeh is nowadays the bankruptcy trustee of the alleged market manipulator MF Global. And about his client, the former Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, I should add that we know for sure that he bankrolled indirectly via his wife two of the alleged would-be 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi. [35]
But let’s get back to the subject of destruction. On September 11, not only human life, aircraft and buildings were destroyed in New York City, but also data on computers and in archives. For example, several federal agencies occupied space in Building 7 of the World Trade Center, including the Securities and Exchange Commission on floors 11 to 13.
Those and other data could have given information about the alleged 9/11 insider trading (though it seems to be very unlikely that no backup existed elsewhere independent of the local computer systems). In fact, some technology companies were commissioned to recover damaged hard disks, which had been recovered from the debris and dust of Ground Zero.
One of these companies was the English company group Convar, more precisely: their data rescue center in the German city Pirmasens. Erik Kirschbaum from the news agency Reuters reported in December 2001 that Convar had at that time successfully restored information from 32 computers, supporting „suspicions that some of the 911 transactions were illegal“.
“The suspicion is that inside information about the attack was used to send financial transaction commands and authorizations in the belief that amid all the chaos the criminals would have, at the very least, a good head start,‘ says Convar director Peter Henschel.”[36] Convar received the costly orders – according to Kirschbaum´s report the companies had to pay between $20,000 and $30,000 per rescued computer – in particular from credit card companies, because: “There was a sharp rise in credit card transactions moving through some computer systems at the WTC shortly before the planes hit the twin towers. This could be a criminal enterprise – in which case, did they get advance warning? Or was it only a coincidence that more than $100 million was rushed through the computers as the disaster unfolded?”[37]
The companies for which Convar was active cooperated with the FBI. If the data were reconstructed they should have been passed on to the FBI, and the FBI, according to its statutory mandate, should have initiated further investigation based on the data to find out who carried out these transactions. Henschel was optimistic at the time that the sources for the transactions would come to light.
Richard Wagner, a Convar employee, told Kirschbaum that „illegal transfers of more than $100 million might have been made immediately before and during the disaster. ‚There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million,‘ he says. ‚They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed‘.“ [38]
Wagner’s observation that there had been „illegal financial transactions shortly before and during the WTC disaster“ matches an observation which Ruppert describes in Crossing the Rubicon . Ruppert was contacted by an employee of Deutsche Bank, who survived the WTC disaster by leaving the scene when the second aircraft had hit its target.
According to the employee, about five minutes before the attack the entire Deutsche Bank computer system had been taken over by something external that no one in the office recognized and every file was downloaded at lightning speed to an unknown location. The employee, afraid for his life, lost many of his friends on September 11, and he was well aware of the role which the Deutsche Bank subsidiary Alex Brown had played in insider trading. [39]
I was curious and wanted more information from Convar regarding their work on the WTC-computer hard drives, but also about the statements made by Peter Henschel and Richard Wagner. Thus, I contacted the agency which represents Convar for press matters, with a written request. But their agency „ars publicandi“ informed me swiftly:
Due to time constraints, we can currently offer you neither information nor anyone on the part of our client to talk to regarding this requested topic.
I also approached KrollOntrack, a very interesting competitor of Convar in writing. Ontrack Data Recovery, which also has subsidiaries in Germany, was purchased in 2002 by Kroll Inc – „one of the nation’s most powerful private investigative and security firms, which has long-standing involvement with executive protection US government officials including the president. This would require close liaison with the Secret Service.“ [40]
At the time of the 9/11 attacks, a certain Jerome Hauer was one of the managing directors at Kroll Inc. He had previously established the crisis center for the mayor of New York City as director of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which occupied office space on the 23rd floor of the WTC Building 7. Hauer helped former FBI agent John O’Neill to get the post of the head of Security Affairs at the WTC, and spent the night of September 11 with O’Neill in New York before the latter lost his life on September 11 in the WTC. Hauer was most likely involved in the planning of „Tripod II“, the war game exercise at the port of New York City. [41]
Therefore, I found it appealing to uncover some more details of this aspect, or, more accurately to find out if Ontrack or KrollOntrack had received an order in 2001 or after to rescue computer hard drives from the WTC. The answer I received from KrollOntrack said:
Kroll Ontrack was not at the site of the data recovery – the devices at the Twin Towers have been completely destroyed or vaporized. The firm Kroll was, however, at that time active in the field of computer-forensic investigations, securing devices in the surrounding buildings.
In essence, these two inquiries did not help me at all. If anything, a further question arose: why did KrollOntrack send me a response, where it was really obvious that the content did not match the facts? After all, I had written in my inquiry that Convar had received orders to restore damaged computer hard drives from the World Trade Center.
I sent a new inquiry, attaching a link for Erik Kirschbaum’s Reuters article and additional cinematic reports on Convar’s which showed that some of the WTC disks had not been „completely destroyed or vaporized“. I stated to KrollOntrack: „Your answer does not seem to match the facts, when it comes to ‚completely destroyed or vaporized‘. Will you still stick to your answer?“
KrollOntrack then replied that their previously given assessment constituted „not a statement, but an opinion“.
I do not find this assessment worthless, because it is in line with the knowledge of the general public and can easily be refuted in argumentum in contrario by Convar´s activities.
One film report to which I referred to in my second inquiry to KrollOntrack originated from the German television journal Heute-Journal broadcast on March 11, 2002, on ZDF, and the other from the Dutch TV documentary Zembla, broadcast on September 10, 2006.
The ZDF report showed that Convar received the WTC disks from the US Department of Defense and that Convar had managed until March 2002 to recover more than 400 hard drives. It also reported that the private companies that employed Convar had paid between $25,000 and $50,000 per hard drive. In the TV documentary Zembla, Convar essentially maintained its position as it had been reported by Erik Kirschbaum in 2001.
Obviously, in connection with 9/11 there has not only been insider trading via put options, but there is additional evidence that there have been illegal financial transactions via credit cards through which more than 100 million US dollars were removed from the WTC computer systems.
Those occurred shortly before and during the WTC disaster. It remains unclear what the FBI did later on with the data recovered by Convar. On the other hand, it may have been not very much, as can be seen from a memorandum from the 9/11 Commission, which was released in May 2009.
The 9/11 Commission asked the FBI about the use of credit cards for insider dealing. On the basis of the information provided by the FBI, the commission came to the conclusion that no such activity occurred because „the assembled agents expressed no knowledge of the reported hard-drive recovery effort or the alleged scheme“ – but above all „everything at the WTC was pulverized to near powder, making it extremely unlikely that any hard-drives survived“. [42]
The activities of Convar, however, prove the exact opposite.
But it gets even better. According to Zembla, the FBI was directly involved with the data rescue efforts of Convar. And on top of it, the broadcast of Heute-Journal reported that Convar worked in that „highly sensitive“ matter with several federal agencies of the United States government.
So there have been ample indications for insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks, but there are very few hard facts as Catherine Austin Fitts, a former managing director and member of the board of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co, Inc (now part of UBS), pointed out when I talked with her about this topic.
Ms Fitts, what are your general thoughts related to the alleged 9/11-insider trading?
Catherine Austin Fitts: Well, I’ve never been able to see concrete evidence that the insider trading has been proved. There’s a lot of anecdotal information from investment bankers and people in the investment community that indicate that there was significant insider trading, particularly in the currency and bond markets, but again it hasn’t been documented.
I think around situations like 9/11 we’ve seen things that can only be explained as insider trading. Therefore, it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out the allegations are true, because my suspicion is that 9/11 was an extremely profitable covert operation and a lot of the profits came from the trading. It wouldn’t even surprise me if it turns out that the Exchange Stabilization Fund traded it and that some of the funding for the compensation fund for the victims came from the ESF.
Insider trading happens around these kinds of events, but if you really want to produce evidence of insider trading, you need the subpoena powers of the SEC, and of course we know that they haven’t exercised them. If anything, right after 9/11, the government settled a significant amount of cases I presume because a lot of the documents were destroyed by the destruction of WTC building number 7, where the SEC offices and other governmental investigation offices were. [43]
Fitts, who had written a longer essay in 2004 related to this, replied to my question about who had benefited from 9/11:
Catherine Austin Fitts: 9/11 was extraordinarily profitable for Wall Street, they of course got a kind of „Get Out of Jail Free card“ as I’ve just described. In addition, the largest broker of government bonds, Cantor Fitzgerald, was destroyed, and there was a great deal of money missing from the federal government in the prior four or five years. If you look at the amount of funds involved, it is hard to come to a conclusion other than massive securities fraud was involved, so I find it very interesting that this happened. [44]
A short explanation: Cantor Fitzgerald’s headquarters were located in the North Tower of the WTC (floors 101-105). On 9/11, the company lost nearly two-thirds of its entire workforce, more than any other tenant in the WTC. (Also two other government bonds brokers, Garbon Inter Capital and Eurobrokers, occupied office space in the WTC towers that were destroyed.) Back to Fitts and the question: „Cui bono 9/11?“
Catherine Austin Fitts: In addition, the federal government took the position that they couldn’t produce audited financial statements after 9/11, because they said the office at the Pentagon that produced financial statements was destroyed. Now given what I know of the federal set up of financial statements, I am skeptical of that statement.
But needless to say, if you take the government on its word, you had another „Get Out of Jail Free card“ for four trillion dollars and more missing from the federal government. So if you’re just looking at the financial fraud angle, there were a lot of parties that benefited from 9/11. But then of course what 9/11 did, it staged the passage of the Patriot Act and a whole series of laws and regulations that I collectively refer to as „The Control on Concentration of Cash Flow Act.“ It gave incredible powers to centralize.
In addition, if you look at monetary policies right after 9/11 – I remember I was over in the City of London driving around with a money manager and his phone rang and he answered it on his speaker phone. It was somebody on Wall Street who he hadn’t talked to since before 9/11, and he said to him:
“Oh Harry, I am so sorry about what has happened, it must have been very traumatic.” And the guy said: “Don’t be ridiculous! We were able to borrow cheap short and invest long, we’re running a huge arbitrage, we’re making a fortune, this is the most profitable thing that ever happened to us!” – So you could tell the monetary policies and sort of insider games were just pumping profits into the bank at that time, so that was very profitable.
But of course the big money was used for a significant movement of the military abroad and into Afghanistan and then into Iraq … You could see that the country was being prepared to go to war. And sure enough, 9/11 was used as a justification to go to war in Afghanistan, to go to war in Iraq, and commit a huge number of actions, and now much of the challenges about the budget are the result of extraordinary expenditures on war including in Afghanistan and Iraq and the costs of moving the army abroad and engaging in this kind of empire building with ground military force.
So I think if you ask Cui Bono on 9/11, one of the big categories was all the people who made money on engineering the popular fear they needed to engineer these wars. I believe whether it was financial fraud, engineering new laws or engineering wars, it was a fantastically profitable covert operation. [45]
In that category of people who benefit from 9/11 are also the arms manufacturer Raytheon, whose share price gained directly from the 9/11 attacks. Trading of the shares of Raytheon, the producer of Tomahawk and Patriot missiles (and parent company of E-systems, whose clients include the National Security Agency and CIA), experienced an abrupt six-time increase of call option purchases on the day immediately before September 11. [46]
The outright purchase of call options implies the expectation that a stock price will rise. In the first week after 9/11, when the New York Stock Exchange opened again, the value of Raytheon actually shot up considerably. Looking at the development of the stock price, the impression is a very weak performance before the attacks – and then, after resumption of trade, a „gap“ (at substantial volume) upwards. In other words: just under $25 on September 10, the low in the period between August 20 to September 28, at $31, 50 on September 17 and up to $34,80 on September 27, 2001.
With regards to government bonds, buyers of US Treasury securities with a maturity of five years were also winners. These securities were traded in an unusually large volume shortly before the attacks. The Wall Street Journal reported at least in early October 2001 that the Secret Service had started an investigation into a suspiciously high volume of US government bond purchases before the attacks. The Wall Street Journal explained:
Five-year Treasury bills are the best investments in the event of a global crisis, in particular one like this which has hit the United States. The papers are treasured because of their safety, and because they are covered by the US government, and usually their prices rise if investors shun riskier investments, such as shares. [47]
Adding to this phenomenon, the government issues these bonds that serve as a basis of money creation for funding a war such as the immediately declared „war on terror“, engaging the Tomahawks from Raytheon. And here it may again be useful to have a quick look at the „cui bono“ relationship:
The US Federal Reserve creates money to fund the war and lends it to the American government. The American government in turn must pay interest on the money they borrow from the Central Bank to fund the war. The greater the war appropriations, the greater the profits are for bankers. [48]
A multi-layered combination, one could say.
I also talked about the topic of 9/11 insider trading with one of the world’s leading practitioners at the interface between the international capital markets, the national security policy of the US as well as geopolitics, James G Rickards. He gave me some answers in a personal discussion, which I am allowed to repeat here with his expressed approval.
Question: Did suspicious trading activities of uncovered put options on futures markets occur shortly before 9/11?
James G Rickards: Well, the trading documents certainly look suspicious. It is simply a fact that an unusually high volume of purchases of put-options for the two airlines occurred over the three trading days before the attacks. This is a mere fact, no speculation, no guessing around. This is clearly obvious from the documents of the trading sessions on the derivatives exchanges.
Question: Do you think that the intelligence agencies could have got a warning signal based on this information?
James G Rickards: Theoretically that is possible, if are you are looking and watching out for this. But there was far more significant information, which was ignored.
Question: Do you also think that some people with foreknowledge operated speculatively in the option markets?
James G Rickards: Based on the documentation of the trading session it seems that this has been the case, yes.
Let’s sum up a bit at the end. We have, among other things:
The „nice detective work“ by Kevin Ryan related to Stratesec/Wirt Walker III. Some highly inconsistent information vis-a-vis Convar/illegal credit card transactions. Scientific papers supporting the allegations that there were indeed unusual trading activities in the option market before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, although the 9/11 Commission (based on the investigation of the SEC and the FBI) ruled that possibility out.
As it became clear that I would publish this article here at Asia Times Online, I contacted the US Federal Bureau of Investigation via its press spokesman Paul Bresson in order „to give the FBI the opportunity to give a public statement with regards to three specific issues“. Those three specific issues were the ones I have just highlighted. Related to each of them I’ve asked Mr Bresson/the FBI: „Could you comment on this for the public, please?“ Up to this moment, Mr Bresson/the FBI did not respond to my inquiry in any way whatsoever. Does this come as a surprise?
I’ve also got back in touch with „ars publicandi“, the firm that does public relations for Convar in Germany. The response said: „Unfortunately I have to inform you that the status has not changed, and that Convar considers the issue of 9/11 as dead in general.“
As you have read, the status in August of last year was slightly different.
At the end of this article, I should perhaps mention that this research ultimately led to negative consequences for me. After I contacted the FBI, I was informed by the publisher of a German financial website, for which I conducted interviews for a professional fee (and had already prepared more work), that no further cooperation was possible. Now that I will come in one way or another into the focus of the FBI, any association with me would be undesirable.
Well, you know the rules.
As far as the abnormal option trades around 9/11 are concerned, I want to give Max Keiser the last word in order to point out the significance of the story.
Max Keiser: Regardless of who did it, we can know that more than a few had advance warning – the trading in the option market makes that clear.
[1] Compare Michael C. Ruppert: “Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age Of Oil“, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, 2004, page 152.
[2] Ibid., page 153.
[3] Ibid., page 154 – 155.
[4] Ibid., page 170.
[5] Ibid., page 238 – 253: “9/11 Insider Trading, or ‘You Didn’t Really See That, Even Though We Saw It.’“
[6] Ibid., page 239.
[7] Compare Chris Blackhurst: “Mystery of terror ‘insider dealers’”, published at The Independent on October 4, 2001 under:
[8] Compare “Profits of Death“, published at From the Wilderness on December 6, 2001 under:
[9] For the fact, that it was George Tenet who recruited Krongard, compare George Tenet: “At the Center of the Storm”, Harper Collins, New York, 2007, page 19.
[10] Compare Marc Chesney, Remo Crameri and Loriano Mancini: “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Option Markets”, University of Zurich, April 2018, online at:
[11] Nafeez M. Ahmed: „Geheimsache 09/11. Hintergründe über den 11. September und die Logik amerikanischer Machtpolitik“, Goldmann Verlag, Munich, 2004, page 182. (Translated back into English from German.)
[12] Compare Michael C. Ruppert: “Crossing the Rubicon“, page 244 – 247.
[13] Wing-Keung Wong, Howard E. Thompson und Kweehong Teh: “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?”, published at Social Sciences Research Network, April 2018, under:
[14] Compare “Bank of America among 38 stocks in SEC’s attack probe”, published at Bloomberg News on October 3, 2001, archived under:
[15] Michael C. Ruppert: “Crossing the Rubicon“, page 243.
[17] “Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks”, published at From the Wilderness on October 9, 2001 under:
[18] Compare “Early September 2001: Almost Irrefutable Proof of Insider Trading in Germany”, published at History Commons under:
[19] Allen M. Poteshman: “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”, published in The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, 2006, Vol. 79, Edition 4, page 1703-1726.
[20] Wing-Keung Wong, Howard E. Thompson und Kweehong Teh: “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?”, see endnote 13.
[21] Ibid. The authors refer to Erin E. Arvedlund: “Follow the money: terrorist conspirators could have profited more from fall of entire market than single stocks“, published in Barron’s on October 8, 2001.
[22] Wong, Thompson, Teh: “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?”
[25] Marina Alcaraz: “11 septembre 2001: des volumes inhabituels sur les options peu avant l’attentat”, published in Les Echos, page 34, September 10, 2001, online at:
[26] Marc Chesney, Remo Crameri and Loriano Mancini: “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Option Markets”, see endnote 10.
[30] Compare Marc Chesney, Remo Crameri and Loriano Mancini: “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Option Markets”, published at the University of Zurich on September 7, 2018 under:bf. uzh. ch/publikationen/pdf/2098.pdf.
[31] Vgl. Lars Schall: “Sapere Aude!“, German Interview with Dr. Daniele Ganser, published at LarsSchall on August 18, 2018 under:
[32] Compare a copy of the letter by the SEC on MaxKeiser under:
[33] Compare related to this agreement Matt Taibbi: “Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes?”, published at Rolling Stone on August 17, 2018 under:
[34] Mark H. Gaffney: “Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side”, published at Foreign Policy Journal on March 2, 2018 under:
[35] Compare Peter Dale Scott: “Launching the U. S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia”, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10, Issue 12, No 3, March 19, 2018, online at:japanfocus/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3723.
[35] Erik Kirschbaum: “German Firm Probes Last-Minute World Trade Center Transactions“, published at Reuters on December 19, 2001, online at:
[38] Michael C. Ruppert: “Crossing the Rubicon“, page 244.
[39] Ibid., page 423.
[40] Ibid., page 423 – 426.
[41] Commission Memorandum: “FBI Briefing on Trading“, dated August 18, 2003, page 12, online at: media. nara. gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf.
[42] Lars Schall: “9/11 Was A Fantastically Profitable Covert Operation”, Interview with Catherine Austin Fitts, published at LarsSchall on September 3, 2018 under:
[43] Ibid. Compare further related to the “cui bono“ topic Catherine Austin Fitts: “9-11 Profiteering: A Framework for Building the ‘Cui Bono?’“, published at GlobalResearch on March 22, 2004 under:globalresearch. ca/articles/FIT403A. html.
[44] Lars Schall: “9/11 Was A Fantastically Profitable Covert Operation”, see endnote 42.
[45] Compare “Bank of America among 38 stocks in SEC’s attack probe”, see endnote 14. “A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U. S. trading.”
[46] Compare Barry Grey: “Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks”, published at World Socialist Web Site on October 5, 2001 under:
[47] J. S. Kim: “Inside the Illusory Empire of the Banking Commodity Con Game”, published at The Underground Investor on October 19, 2018 under:
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

Ken Doc – INVESTIGATE 9/11.
& # 8211؛ GOOGLE "BUILDING 7"
9/11 PUT OPTIONS.
The 9/11 Put Options and Insider Trading.
Leading up to 9/11, there were reports of unusual “Put Options” placed on American Airlines and United Airlines prior to September 11th, 2001. These “puts” have been ignored by the mainstream media and was never fully investigated by the 9/11 Commission. There are still to this day, unidentified investors of these suspicious trades which profited millions of dollars. Let’s look more into the evidence of these put options and other connections to insider trading.
9/11 Attacks: Criminal Foreknowledge and Insider Trading lead directly to the CIA’s Highest Ranks.
“Criminal Foreknowledge and Insider Trading lead directly to the CIA’s Highest Ranks. CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard managed the Firm that handled “Put Options” on United Air Lines. The firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who was placed in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A. B. بنى. Krongard joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush March 16, 2001.”
“The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors – whose identities and nationalities have not been made public – had advance knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.”
Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge.
“Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 The evidence of insider trading includes:
Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack — United Airlines and American Airlines.
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack — Munich Re and the AXA Group.
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack — Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America.
Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack — Raytheon.
Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes”
SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options.
“On September 19, 2001, CBS reported:
Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U. S. stock options market.
An extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines stock price would fall.
The trades are called “puts” and they involved at least 450,000 shares of American. But what raised the red flag is more than 80 percent of the orders were “puts”, far outnumbering “call” options, those betting the stock would rise.”
Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.
“After September 11, 2001, there was a great deal of speculation that the terrorists or their associates had traded in the option market on advanced knowledge of the impending attacks. This paper generates systematic information about option market activity that can be used to assess the option trading that precedes any event of interest. Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks.”
Inside Trading 9/11 (Put Options)
Black 9/11: Money, Motive, Technology, and Plausible Deniability.
OTHER SOURCES FOR PUT OPTIONS.
Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11.
Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks.
Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge.
Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options.
Suspicious profits sit uncollected / Airline investors seem to be lying low.
SEC & EEOC: Attack Delays Investigations.
Put Options (911 Myth?)
HARD DRIVE RECOVERY (CONVAR)
9/11 WTC Hard Drives – $100 Million In Criminal Credit Transfers Before Towers Fell.
German Computer Analysts Discover 9/11 Insider Trading Hard Disk Data.
The Ghost in the Machines: The Mystery of the WTC Hard Drive Recoveries.
Mystery of the WTC Hard Drive Recoveries.
“Convar’s website features a video confirming that Convar GmbH did in fact process the WTC hard drives. datarecovery-europe/welcome. htm The widely disseminated claim that Kroll Associates–the powerful private-intelligence firm responsible for some elements of WTC security on 9/11–acquired Convar in June 2002 remains unsubstantiated. What can be verified is that Kroll purchased Ontrack Data Recovery, a U. S.-based rival of Convar with offices in Germany.”
“Convar (Pirmasens, Germany) a german computer company, tried to recover the data from destroyed computers in the Twin Towers. Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert at Convar , said illegal transfers of more than $100 million might have been made immediately before and during the disaster. “There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million,” Wagner said. “They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed.” Since December 2001, not much has been said. Could it be that Convars department in England, Ontrack had Kroll as one of their investors? They are a subsidiary of risk consulting company Kroll O’Gara (former Kroll Associates, Inc), who is responsible for the security of all US-presidents since 1945.”
“…Convar, a German firm hired to retrieve data from damaged computer systems left in the rubble of the World Trade Center, found that there was a deluge of electronic trading just minutes before the first plane struck. Quoting a December 16 report from Reuter’s, writer Kyle Henry found a compelling quotation from one of Convar’s directors: Peter Henschel, director of Convar…said, ‘not only the volume, but the size of the transactions was far higher than usual for a day like that.’ Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert, estimated that more than $100 million in illegal transactions appeared to have rushed through the WTC computers before and during the disaster….The Reuter’s story was partially confirmed for me when I was contacted by a Deutsche Bank employee who had survived the attacks by fleeing the WTC after the first plane hit. According to the employee, about five minutes before the attack the entire Deutsche Bank computer system had been taken over by something external that no one in the office recognized and every file was downloaded at lightening speed to an unknown location.” [Crossing the Rubicon, Chapter 14, Michael Ruppert]
“How much money was involved? Andreas von Bülow, a former member of the German Parliament responsible for oversight of Germany’s intelligence services estimated the worldwide profits amount at $15 billion, according to Tagesspiegel on Jan. 13. Other experts have estimated the profit at $12 billion. CBS News gave a conservative estimate of $100 million.” [The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9-11 Attacks, Michael C. Ruppert, April 22, 2002]
“September 11, 2001 (C): Data recovery experts later looking at 32 hard drives salvaged from the 9/11 attacks discover a surge in credit card transactions from the WTC in the hours before and during the attacks. Unusually large sums of money were rushed through computers even as the disaster unfolded. Investigators say, “There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million. They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed.” [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more]”
Well there were other trades – extremely significant trades, mostly in financial companies! The total take on pre-September 11th and September 11th trades is estimated at 12-15 billion dollars. A great many people across the globe were aware of the September 11th attacks before they occurred and they made off with billions.
Here are the trades we knew about:
Merrill Lynch & Co: Put Options: 12,215 (Four trading days before the attacks). Of Interest: Occupied 22 floors of the WTC.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co: Put Options: 2,157 (three trading days). Of interest: Controlled 22 floors of the WTC.
United Airlines: Put Options: 4,744. (two and three trading days).
American Airlines: Put Options: 4,516. (One trading day).
Here are the ones we didn’t know about:
“Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers Insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack. It had a jump in trading of October options that profit if shares fall below $40 apiece. Almost 14,000 of those options contracts were traded from Sept. 6 to Sept. 10 — about 45 times the previous daily average. Citigroup shares fell $2.85 that day to $39.60. & # 8221؛
“Bear Stearns & Cos., where investors traded 3,979 contracts from Sept. 6 to Sept. 10 on September options that profit if shares fall below $50. The previous average volume for those options was 22 contracts. Bear Stearns shares fell $3.79 that day to $46.45. & # 8221؛
“Marsh & McLennan Cos., the biggest insurance brokerage, which had 1,700 employees working in the World Trade Center. Traders on Sept. 10 exchanged 1,209 contracts on options that profit if company shares fall below $90 through the third week of September. Previously, 13 contracts had traded on an average day. Marsh & McLennan shares fell $2.50 that day to $84.50.’
“The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: “Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks.” The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11. The article went on to quote Michael Shamosh, a bond-market strategist for Tucker Anthony Inc., who said, “If they were going to do something like this they would do it in the five-year part of the market. It’s extremely liquid, and the tracks would be hard to spot.” The SEC has been extremely tight-lipped about its probe, in which it has enlisted securities firms and government agencies in Europe, Canada and other countries. But on Tuesday the Investment Dealers Association, a trade association for the Canadian securities industry, posted on its web site a list sent by the American SEC of 38 stocks. The US agency had asked the Canadians to look into trading in these stocks between August 27 and September 11. As soon as US officials became aware of the Internet posting, they demanded that the Investment Dealers Association yank it from the web site, and the Canadian organization complied. However, reporters and others were able to copy the list before it was pulled. The list includes the parent companies of American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United and US Airways, as well as Carnival and Royal Caribbean cruise lines, aircraft maker Boeing and defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Several insurance companies are on the list — American International Group, Axa, Chubb, Cigna, CNA Financial, John Hancock and MetLife. The SEC list also includes several big companies that were tenants in the collapsed Twin Towers of the World Trade Center: investment firms Morgan Stanley, the complex’s largest occupant; Lehman Brothers; Bank of America; and the financial firm Marsh & McLennan. Other major companies listed include General Motors, Raytheon, LTV, WR Grace, Lone Star Technologies, American Express, Bank of New York, Bank One, Citigroup and Bear Stearns. [Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 terror attacks, Barry Grey, October 5, 2001]
It is also fair to speculate that the breadth of the pre-attack investments trades was far broader than ever admitted to by the investigators. The general literature suggests trading in four companies, using one mentioned bank – the Deutschebank. Generally excluded from discussions of those reports is a subsequent report from a survivor of the World Trade Center.
The four stock trades usually mentioned, however, are the “unclaimed’ trades – suggesting a potentially larger number of successful trades having taken place. The reality was far greater than generally reported. Trades were placed across the globe, far in excess of the few million dollars of “unclaimed” trades. More simply, a lot of the trades were successfully claimed.
“ABC World News reported on Sept. 20, “Jonathan Winer, an ABC News consultant said, ‘it’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan, to the U. S., to North America, to Europe.”
“According to Phil Erlanger, a former Senior Technical Analyst with Fidelity, and founder of a Florida firm that tracks short selling and options trading, insiders made off with billions (not mere millions) in profits by betting on the fall of stocks they knew would tumble in the aftermath of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.”
“Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average. Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley “put” option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time.”
THE PURCHASE OF AIRLINE PUT OPTIONS.
1. Is it true that the CIA is in possession of PROMIS software?
2. What is the purpose of PROMIS?
3. Did A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard, CIA, own any stocks of United Airlines, American Airlines, Merrill Lynch,
4. Morgan Stanley, AXA Re (insurance) which owns 25% of American Airlines, and Munich Re.?
5. What is his connection to Alex Brown, Deutsche Bank?
6. Did he give any insider information about to George Tenet, CIA?
7. Who was the investor who purchased 2,000 UAL put options between August and September 11, 2001?
8. Did Deutsche Bank-Alex Brown own any stocks of UA, AA, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re (insurance) which owns 25% of American Airlines, and Munich Re?
9. What about the 2,500 UA-contracts which were “split into 500 chunks each, directing each order to different U. S. Exchanges around the country simultaneously.” on August 10, 2001?
10. Did Deutsche purchase UAL options in August 2001?
11. Why did DB-AB purchase 4,744 put options on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 call s on September 6-7? What was the purpose of doing that?
12. What is the connection to Wally Kromgaard?
13. Did Deutsche Bank or Wally Kromgaard purchase 4,516 put options on American Airlines as compared to 748 call options on September 10?
14. What was the reason of Mayo Shattuck III re-asssignment on September 15th?
SEC & EEOC: Attack Delays Investigations.
“Additional details emerged Friday about the effect of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on investigations being conducted by the New York offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both of which were housed in the building. The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency’s major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system.”
SEC: No Records Whatsoever Regarding Destroyed WTC 7 Investigation Files.
There were a series of seven actions undertaken by the Federal Reserve during the days and weeks that followed the attack on the WTC which served the purpose of covering-up the settlement and refinancing the fraudulent 10 year Durham/Brady Bonds which came due on September 11. Those actions include:
1. the Commission for the first time invoked its emergency powers under.
Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k);
2. SEC lifted “Rule 15c3-3 – Customer Protection–Reserves and Custody of Securities” which allowed them to suspend all reporting and identity security controls;
3. The SEC temporarily injected $300 Billion into the US money supply while.
settling the fraudulent securities;
4. Government Securities Clearing Corporation sent a memo to banks encouraging them to make security ‘substitutions’ on “immediately maturing collateral;”
5. Government Securities Clearing Corporation treated the ‘fails’ as two separate groups, suggesting there was a large group of trades that required ‘special treatment’ for “other” problems;
6. GSCC issued another memo allowing blind broker settlements. A “blind broker” is a mechanism for inter-dealer transactions that maintains the anonymity of both parties to the trade;
7. SEC held an unusual “snap” auction of new ten-year securities to facilitate sale of government securities probably used to refinance the fraudulent Durham/Brady Bonds.
“Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall”
The New York Times revealed in November 2001 that Building 7 was the location for a secret CIA office and Sensitive Compartmentalized Intelligence Facility (SCIF). SCIFs are where the most sensitive intelligence information is stored. These facilities are routinely swept for electronic listening devices. They may even have bullet proof windows, air filtration, and independent water supply. Operatives would routinely meet following a classified operation in a SCIF to debrief and identify loose ends to maintain program integrity.
Enron and 9-11; Connecting the Dots.
“The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency’s major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system.”
Bush Administration Undermines Global Anti-money Laundering Efforts, Protects a Shadowy Criminal Financial Network.
“Lack of crackdown leaves drug traffickers with freer reign Unfortunately, on closer analysis this link to the Enron scandal may be part of another serious problem, but in a different and far more dire sense. In withdrawing U. S. participation from an aggressive campaign against the money laundering system, the Bush administration may have not only effectively protected Enron’s use of offshore havens, but worse, protected the far more heinous crimes of drug traffickers who exploit the same financial system.”
“Experts Accuse U. S. Agencies of Footdragging Before Sept. 11th. WASHINGTON — Money-laundering experts say that the U. S. effort to deny funds to terrorists by freezing their assets lacked a sense of urgency before Sept. 11, reflecting a failure to appreciate the extent of the terrorist threat.”
WTC 7 was intentionally demolished so that all the evidence against the corporate elite would be destroyed and could not be used against them in a court of law. The destruction of Building 7 meant the destruction of evidence. Which housed 1000’s of documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. It may have been the command post to which 9/11 was planned.
Black Eagle Trust Fund.
The 9/11 Attacks and the Black Eagle Trust Fund.
“On that fateful day, the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency, and for the first time in U. S. history, invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) easing regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.”
Collateral Damage: U. S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on 9/11.
“The September 11th attacks were likely meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th. [1] The attacks … were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas.”
9/11, WTC7 and the Black Eagle Trust: How Bank of New York may have laundered $240 billion.
Operation Golden Lily, The Black Eagle Trust, 9/11, The Dragon Family, the $1 trillion dollar Keenan federal lawsuit, and the Global Collateral Accounts/World Global Settlements.
Black Eagle Fund and the events of Sept. 11, 2001 related to the Dark Legacy?
9/11: The Inside Story.
“Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, saw its stock soar immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.
A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U. S. trading.
Raytheon has been fined millions of dollars inflating the costs of equipment it sells the US military. Raytheon has a secretive subsidiary, E-Systems, whose clients have included the CIA and NSA.”
Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side.
“The biggest winner, though, was Raytheon, which manufactures Tomahawk missiles. During the week following the 9/11 attacks, Raytheon stock climbed by an astounding 37%.[8] Prior to 9/11, the purchase of call options (a contract to buy a stock at a certain price) for Raytheon had suspiciously surged by 600%.”
Bush’s War on Terrorism: Who Will Pay and Who Will Benefit?
“Among the top gainers for the week of September 17-21 were major military and space contractors like Raytheon (+37%), L-3 Communications (+35.8%), EDO (+24.8%), Alliant Tech Systems (+23.5%), and Northrop Grumman (+21.2%).”
RAYTHEON EMPLOYEES ON BOARD 9/11 FLIGHTS.
Raytheon Honors the Memory of Our Friends and Colleagues on 9/11.
“On the 11th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, we honor the memory of our Raytheon colleagues Peter Gay, Stanley Hall, David Kovalcin and Kenneth Waldie — and the other nearly 3,000 individuals who perished that day. Today and always, our thoughts are with them, their families, friends and colleagues.”
Context of ‘September 25, 2001: Several 9/11 Passengers Have Possible Connections to Pilotless Aircraft Program’
1) Stanley Hall (Flight 77) was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him “our dean of electronic warfare.” [AP, 9/25/01]
2) Peter Gay (Flight 11) was Raytheon’s Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. [AP, 9/25/01] Raytheon’s El Segundo’s Electronic Systems division is one of two divisions making the remote controlled Global Hawk. [ISR Journal, 3/02]
3) Kenneth Waldie (Flight 11) was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems.
4) David Kovalcin (Flight 11) was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems. [CNN, 9/01]
5) Herbert Homer (Flight 175) was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. [CNN, 9/01, Northeastern University Voice, 12/11/01]
Family Members Of Doomed 911 Flights ‘Strangely Silent’ About Irregularities &
Inconsistencies Of Official Government Story.
“Gay lost her husband, Peter, 54, a vice president of Raytheon Co. on 9/11. Four years later, she still lives in Tewksbury, Mass., claiming as she did right after the tragic event, she is satisfied with her government’s efforts at getting at the truth behind 9/11, satisfied with the money she received from the victim’s compensation fund and satisfied with not pursuing her husband’s death any further.”
Surprising number of passengers on Flight AA77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon had military connections.
MORE 9/11 CANTOR FITZGERALD, GOLDMAN SACHS, FED. R., UST, BUSH ETAL ‘FINANCIAL TERRORISM’
Why Bush Sr. chose 9-11-01 as WTC hit date: no payback on bond billions for terrorism fund.
Even More On 911 And Fortuitous Events.
Reportedly the Zero Coupon Brady Bonds were secured by bogus gold collateral certificates and for that to have happened someone inside of our government had to have given bogus documents the color of authenticity. I think Americans deserve to know who would do such a thing and why they thought felony conduct was OK with Americans. That same Brady Bond scam that was to have closed in late September and early October 2001 and the bonds were reportedly at Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC 1. Fortuitously they were destroyed on September 11, 2001. Odds are the SEC records in WTC 7 that were fortuitously destroyed when that building was “pulled” included this apparently bogus Brady Bond deal too.”
****The Brady Bond Provided The Recipe For Credit Enhancement*****
NY FINANCIAL FIRM SETTLING 9/11 SUIT WITH AIRLINE.
“Cantor Fitzgerald’s headquarters were on the top floors of the north tower, which was struck by American Airlines Flight 11. The firm accused American of negligence in allowing hijackers to board the plane and crash it into the tower. American responded that it couldn’t have predicted such an attack and that it followed federal security regulations.”

911 stock put options

There was very high trading in "put options" on American Airline and United Airlines, immediately before 9/11. These were effectively gambles that their share prices would fall, which of course is what happened once the attacks took place. This shows the traders must have had advance knowledge of 9/11.
This is a complex story, but the claims don’t always match the reality.
"A single U. S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.
Perhaps the strongest challenge to this conclusion comes from Professor Allen M Poteshman from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He decided to investigate this further, analysing market data statistically to try and assess the trades’ significance. Professor Poteshman points out several reasons to question the foreknowledge argument:
Despite the views expressed by the popular media, leading academics, and option market professionals, there is reason to question the decisiveness of the evidence that terrorists traded in the option market ahead of the September 11 attacks. One event that casts doubt on the evidence is the crash of an American Airlines plane in New York City on November 12. According to the OCC Web site, three trading days before, on November 7, the put-call ratio for options on AMR stock was 7.74. On the basis of the statements made about the links between option market activity and terrorism shortly after September 11, it would have been tempting to infer from this put-call ratio that terrorism probably was the cause of the November 12 crash. Subsequently, however, terrorism was all but ruled out. While it might be the case that an abnormally large AMR put-call ratio was observed by chance on November 7, this event certainly raises the question of whether put-call ratios as large as 7.74 are, in fact, unusual. Beyond the November 12 plane crash, an article published in Barron’s on October 8 (Arvedlund 2001) offers several additional grounds for being skeptical about the claims that it is likely that terrorists or their associates traded AMR and UAL options ahead of the September 11 attacks. For starters, the article notes that the heaviest trading in the AMR options did not occur in the cheapest, shortest-dated puts, which would have provided the largest profits to someone who knew of the coming attacks. Furthermore, an analyst had issued a “sell” recommendation on AMR during the previous week, which may have led investors to buy AMR puts. Similarly, the stock price of UAL had recently declined enough to concern technical traders who may have increased their put buying, and UAL options are heavily traded by institutions hedging their stock positions. Finally, traders making markets in the options did not raise the ask price at the time the orders arrived as they would have if they believed that the orders were based on adverse nonpublic information: the market makers did not appear to find the trading to be out of the ordinary at the time that it occurred.
However, he then devises a statistical model, which he suggests is consistent with foreknowledge after all:
Options traders, corporate managers, security analysts, exchange officials, regulators, prosecutors, policy makers, and—at times—the public at large have an interest in knowing whether unusual option trading has occurred around certain events. A prime example of such an event is the September 11 terrorist attacks, and there was indeed a great deal of speculation about whether option market activity indicated that the terrorists or their associates had traded in the days leading up to September 11 on advance knowledge of the impending attacks. This speculation, however, took place in the absence of an understanding of the relevant characteristics of option market trading.
One issue that troubles us about this is the lack of analysis of the string of bad news delivered by American Airlines on September 7th, the trading day before September 10th, when the most significant trading occurred. Professor Poteshman told us via email:
My study does include quantile regressions that account for the market conditions on particular stocks. Hence, there is at least a first order correction for the negative news that was coming out on Sept. 7 on AMR.
But can you really treat the news so simply? Professor Paul Zarembka supports the claims, saying:
Poteshman finds . these purchases [of options on American Airline stock] . had only 1 percent probability of occurring simply randomly.
But we’re not saying they were random, rather that they may have been a rational response to significant bad news delivered the day before. Poteshman is essentially saying (with regard to AMR) is that people bought too many puts for that to be explained by the 9/7 news, therefore another explanation is required, but how can you say that without analysing the news itself? After all, if that news had been “we’ll probably be bankrupt in six months” then the put ratios would probably have been even more significant, and Poteshman’s model given even more confirmation of “unusual option market activity”, but would that have made the idea of foreknowledge more likely? We don’t think so. Obviously the AMR news was less significant, but we would still say that you cannot accurately judge the significance of these trades until you take it into consideration.
A single U. S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U. S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.
The September 6th UAL puts would automatically appear significant, then, even though only one investor was reportedly behind them. But does that really mean you can mathematically indicate it’s likely that investor had foreknowledge of 9/11, without considering the other market conditions and information available at the time?

911 stock put options

Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks.
FTW - October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U. S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.
Until 1997 A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A. B. بنى. A. B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U. S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U. S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
THE SCOPE OF KNOWN INSIDER TRADING.
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades – in real time – as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U. S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades, “selling short” and “put options”.
“Selling Short” is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months.
“Put Options,” are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell stocks at a later date. Purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, they are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 – regardless of where the market then stands. A call option is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled “Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?” documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.
- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;… Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
- [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million. Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by “insiders,” their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
- European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [ FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a “double whammy” for them.]
On September 29, 2001 – in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media – the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
“The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors – whose identities and nationalities have not been made public – had advance knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”
“…The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options…” This was the operation managed by Krongard until as recently as 1998.
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
CIA, THE BANKS AND THE BROKERS.
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let’s look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA’s history.
Clark Clifford – The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles – These two brothers “designed” the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U. S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U. S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey – Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush – President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11 th largest defense contractor in the nation, which also shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.
A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard – The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A. B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation’s second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering of drug money. This includes Citigroup’s 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin – This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank’s board.
Maurice “Hank” Greenburg – The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg’s and AIG’s long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG’s stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read that story, please go to copvcia/stories/part_2.html .
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.
[© COPYRIGHT, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications, copvcia . كل الحقوق محفوظة. – May be reprinted or distributed for non-profit purposes only.]
Commander in Chief.
Back Off Bin Ladens.
The Bushes and the Carlyle Group.
How Bush and other ex-politic os profit from connections and access.
What doesn't he want Americans to know?
The sanctions have loopholes our vice president made millions from.

Stock put options 9/11.
Stock put options 9/11.
Stock put options 9/11.
Understanding Stock Options - Cboe Options Exchange.
17.11.2017 · Exchange Traded Product (ETP) Options. of an entire stock portfolio in a single security. Options on ETFs operate put and call options on.
What Is a Put Option? -- The Motley Fool.
خيارات الأسهم 101. خيارات الاتصال؛ وضع خيارات. , forcing the seller of the put to buy the stock at the strike price at a time Put options are quoted.
Profiting From Disaster? - CBS News.
14.08.2017 · Why options? If you are an The owner of the put option literally has the right to PUT the stock to the seller.
Options 101 for Stock Traders / Learn More / E*TRADE.
14.11.2017 · At the heart of all the spreads and strategies discussed about options is the call and put. A call gives its owner the option to buy a stock at a specific.
9/11 Wall Street Blames Put Option Inside Trading On.
16.11.2017 · Learn everything about put options and how put option then you may want to consider writing put options on the stock as a means to.
Put Option Definition, Put Options Examples, What are Puts.
21.09.2001 · From the 9/11 Commission Report Who Put the put options on American the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops.
What Is a Put Option: Long, Short, Buy, Sell, Example.
15.01.2009 · I have always had a personal interest in the 9/11 put option theories, a result of all those finance classes I took in b-school no doubt, so even though.
The Put Options - YouTube.
What Is a Put Option? A put option is a type of derivative that gains in value when the underlying stock moves lower. In other words, put options can be used to.
September 11-14, 2018 -- SPECIAL 9/11 REPORT ON STOCK PUT.
06.09.2001 · On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks, 2,282 put.
Somebody involved in the stock market knew in advance and.
9/11 Put Options. Alyssa L Wed, 04/22 events profited through the purchase of put options in financial markets. The 9/11 placed on any other airline stock.
Put Option Definition | Investopedia.
Netflix, Inc. (NFLX) Options Chain - Get free stock options quotes including option chains with call and put prices, viewable by expiration date, most active, and.
Stock Option Trades Reveal Foreknowledge of 9/11 | ال.
21.05.2008 · This past weekend at the NE 9/11 Truth Symposium, Kyle Hence elaborated on the put options that were purchased prior to 9/11. I recommended to the audience.
20 أكتوبر 2018.
What Is a Put Option - Schaeffer's Investment Research.
SEC SECRET PROBE OF STOCK DEALINGS BEFORE 9/11. Between August 26 and September 11, 2001, a group of speculators, identified by the American Securities and Exchange.
Netflix, Inc. (NFLX) Option Chain - Stock Puts & المكالمات.
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted.
Put Options | تيريس نصائح.
19.08.2018 · Stock Option Trades Reveal Foreknowledge of The particular financial firm used to place put options on United Airlines stock 9/11 put options,
9/11 stock put options :: Trading binary options.
In each case, the anomalous purchases translated into large profits as soon as the stock market opened a week after the attack: put options were used on stocks that.
SEC SECRET PROBE OF STOCK DEALINGS BEFORE 9/11.
Understanding Stock Options Introduction The purpose of this publication is to provide an introductory understanding of stock options and how they can be used.
Put Options - 911myths.
19.08.2018 · Video embedded · 9/11 Wall Street Blames Put Option Inside Trading On Terrorists The Case of the Strange Stock Trades - 9/11 Pre-9/11 Documents "Put Options.

Insider Trading.
Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge.
Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 The evidence of insider trading includes:
Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes.
In each case, the anomalous purchases translated into large profits as soon as the stock market opened a week after the attack: put options were used on stocks that would be hurt by the attack, and call options were used on stocks that would benefit.
Put and call options are contracts that allow their holders to sell and buy assets, respectively, at specified prices by a certain date. Put options allow their holders to profit from declines in stock values because they allow stocks to be bought at market price and sold for the higher option price. The ratio of the volume of put option contracts to call option contracts is called the put/call ratio. The ratio is usually less than one, with a value of around 0.8 considered normal. 2.
American Airlines and United Airlines, and several insurance companies and banks posted huge loses in stock values when the markets opened on September 17. Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks -- were purchased on the stocks of these companies in great volume in the week before the attack.
United Airlines and American Airlines.
Two of the corporations most damaged by the attack were American Airlines (AMR), the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines (UAL), the operator of Flight 175 and Flight 93. According to CBS News , in the week before the attack, the put/call ratio for American Airlines was four. 3 The put/call ratio for United Airlines was 25 times above normal on September 6. 4.
The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.
The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
When the market reopened after the attack, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share. 7.
Reinsurance Companies.
Several companies in the reinsurance business were expected to suffer huge losses from the attack: Munich Re of Germany and Swiss Re of Switzerland -- the world's two biggest reinsurers, and the AXA Group of France. In September, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle estimated liabilities of $1.5 billion for Munich Re and $0.55 bilion for the AXA Group and telegraph. co. uk estimated liabilities of Ј1.2 billion for Munich Re and Ј0.83 billion for Swiss Re. 8 9.
Trading in shares of Munich Re was almost double its normal level on September 6, and 7, and trading in shares of Swiss Re was more than double its normal level on September 7. 10.
Financial Services Companies.
Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack. Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened. 11.
Bank of America showed a fivefold increase in put option trading on the Thursday and Friday before the attack.
While most companies would see their stock valuations decline in the wake of the attack, those in the business of supplying the military would see dramatic increases, reflecting the new business they were poised to receive.
Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, saw its stock soar immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.
Raytheon has been fined millions of dollars inflating the costs of equipment it sells the US military. Raytheon has a secretive subsidiary, E-Systems, whose clients have included the CIA and NSA. 14.
US Treasury Notes.
Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volumes before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.
The SEC's Investigation.
Shortly after the attack the SEC circulated a list of stocks to securities firms around the world seeking information. 16 A widely circulated article states that the stocks flagged by the SEC included those of the following corporations: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, US Airways airlines, Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American International Group, AMR Corporation, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp, Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation, Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W. R. Grace, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies, American Express, the Citigroup Inc., Royal & Sun Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns.
An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:
In a two-page statement issued to "all securities-related entities" nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate "the sensitive nature" of the case and can be relied upon to "exercise appropriate discretion" as "point" people linking government investigators and the industry. 17.
Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:
Interpreting and Reinterpreting the Data.
An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them. In his book Crossing the Rubicon Michael C. Ruppert illustrates this point by first excerpting a number of reports published shortly after the attack:
A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26 A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26 No similar trading occurred on any other airlines.
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] 3 Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. 4.
3. "Mechanics of Possible Bin Laden Insider Trading Scam," Herzlyya International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), September 22, 2001. Michael C. Ruppert, "The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9-11 Attacks," From the Wilderness April 22, 2002. Posted at Centre for Research and Globalization <globalresearch. ca/articles/RUP203A. html>.
4. ICT, op. cit, citing data from the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (CBOE). [. ] "Terrorists trained at CBPE." Chicago Sun-Times , September 20, 2001, <suntimes/terror/stories/cst-nws-trade20.html>. "Probe of options trading link to attacks confirmed," [. ] Chicago Sun-Times , September 21, 2001, <suntimes/terror/stories/cst-fin-trade21.html>.
Ruppert then illustrates an apparent attempt to bury the story by explaining it away as nothing unusual. A September 30 New York Times article claims that "benign explanations are turning up" in the SEC's investigation. 20 The article blames the activity in put options, which it doesn't quantify, on "market pessimism," but fails to explain why the price of the stocks in the airlines doesn't reflect the same market pessimism.
The fact that $2.5 million of the put options remained unclaimed is not explained at all by market pessimism, and is evidence that the put option purchasers were part of a criminal conspiracy. 21.

Put Options.
Claim.
One of the most commonly repeated claims of 9/11 foreknowledge is based on the financial trading that took place just before the attacks. Put options, essentially bets that a share price will fall, were placed in unusually high levels just before 9/11 on both airlines involved in the attack, as well as major companies based in the WTC, insurers that had underwritten the cover to the World Trade Centre complex, and others. When the stock exchange reopened, all these share prices had plummeted, and the buyers made huge profits.
Mike Ruppert was one of the first people to link the story to the US government, with an article entitled "Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks: CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard managed firm that handled “PUT” options on United Airline Stock":
Until 1997 A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A. B. بنى. A. B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U. S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U. S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.
(Go follow the link to read the whole thing).
The story also appeared in the mainstream media a week or so after the attacks:
The statement comes amid widespread international efforts by investigators and regulators to determine whether terrorists tried to profit from stock and option trading ahead of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
In the days before the attacks, unusually high numbers of put options were purchased for the stocks of AMR Corp. and UAL Corp., the parent companies of American Airlines and United Airlines, which each had two planes hijacked. There was no such trend involving other carriers.
A put option is a contract that gives a holder the right to sell an asset at a specified price before a certain date.
On Sept. 6-7, when there was no significant news or stock price movement involving United, the Chicago exchange handled 4,744 put options for UAL stock, compared with just 396 call options -- essentially bets that the price will rise. On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records.
On Monday, the first day of trading following the attacks, shares of AMR fell 39 percent, and UAL stock plunged 42 percent. Other airline shares also were sharply lower and most rebounded modestly Tuesday.
"I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets," John Kinnucan, a principal of Broadband Research, an independent telecommunications research firm, told the San Francisco Chronicle. "When one sees this type of activity, the first thing one does is ask oneself, 'What is the explanation? What are people worried about?' "
According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the SEC said it had received information from various U. S. agencies Friday about possible trading by terrorists in industries affected by the bombing, including insurance and the airlines, and also about possible put-option or futures-index trading.
On Monday, Germany's stock market regulator said it was looking into claims of suspicious short-selling just before the Sept. 11 attacks. Washington and several other governments have identified Osama bin Laden as a prime suspect.
The SEC has received information from other U. S. regulators about possible suspicious trading earlier this month in put options, according to a government source.
The Chicago exchange trades options on the stocks of about 1,400 companies along with 38 stock-based indexes, including the Dow Jones industrial average, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100.
All nose-dived in the aftermath of the attacks, which would have meant substantial profits for anyone who had bet on their decline by buying put options or through short-selling. Short-sellers borrow stock and sell it in anticipation of buying it back later at a lower price.
The suggestion is that these purchases were unusually targeted at companies that would directly suffer from the attacks, then. Volumes were far higher than normal, and there was no other news that might explain why people might think these particular share prices would fall. Therefore, it's claimed, the put option buyers must have had some level of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
The Commission account.
The main body of the 9/11 Commission Report made only brief reference to the put options, and even that was hidden away in a footnote:
September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.A single U. S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U. S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners,“Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,” May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview.
(Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
Footnote 130, Chapter 5, 9/11 Commission Report.
We've frequently seen the Commission criticised for this, however they did give many more details on the issue in Appendix B of the Commision's Terrorist Financing Staff Monograph, which we include here in full.
Appendix B: Securities Trading.
This appendix describes the staff and U. S. government investigations into the issue of whether anyone with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks profited through securities trading, and explains the conclusion in the Commission’s final report that extensive government investigation has revealed no evidence of such illicit trading.
Almost since 9/11 itself, there have been consistent reports that massive “insider trading” preceded the attacks, enabling persons apparently affiliated with al Qaeda to reap huge profits. The Commission has found no evidence to support these reports. To the contrary, exhaustive investigation by federal law enforcement, in conjunction with the securities industry, has found no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks profited through securities transactions.
Commission Staff Investigation.
Commission staff had unrestricted access to the U. S. government officials who led and conducted the investigation into securities trading in advance of 9/11. In addition to interviewing the key personnel, Commission staff reviewed the nonpublic government reports summarizing the investigative results as well as backup data, including spreadsheets, memoranda and other analyses, and reports of interviews with traders, securities industry participants, and other witnesses. We obtained and reviewed the reports of investigations done by certain major nongovernmental securities industries bodies who share responsibility with the government for monitoring securities trading in U. S. markets, including the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers Regulation, and interviewed witnesses from a key private-sector entity. Commission staff also reviewed information provided by foreign securities regulators, interviewed German law enforcement officials, and interviewed U. S. law enforcement personnel regarding their contacts with their foreign counterparts on securities trading.
In addition, Commission staff drew on its review of extensive classified intelligence concerning al Qaeda and how it manages its operations and its finances, as well as debriefings of al Qaeda detainees, including 9/11 plot leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other plot participants. This information proved useful in evaluating how closely held al Qaeda kept the 9/11 operation and the likelihood it would seek to profit from the attacks through securities trading.
The U. S. Government Investigation of Trading in the United States.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the FBI, with the involvement of the Department of Justice, conducted the investigation of the allegation that there was illicit trading in advance of 9/11; numerous other agencies played a supporting role. 166.
The SEC’s chief of the Office of Market Surveillance initiated an investigation into pre9/11 trading on September 12, 2001. At a multi-agency meeting on September 17, at FBI headquarters, the SEC agreed to lead the insider trading investigation, keeping the FBI involved as necessary. The Department of Justice assigned a white-collar crime prosecutor from the U. S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn to work full-time on the investigation; he relocated to Washington, D. C., on September 18.
The SEC undertook a massive investigation, which at various times involved more than 40 staff members from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and Office of International Affairs. The SEC also took the lead on coordinating intensive investigations by the self-regulatory organizations (SROs) that share responsibility for monitoring the U. S. securities markets, including, among others, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, the National Association of Securities Dealers Regulation, and the Chicago Board Options Exchange. The investigation focused on securities of companies or industries that could have been expected to suffer economically from the terrorist attacks. Thus, the investigators analyzed trading in the following sectors: airlines, insurance, financial services, defense and aerospace, security services, and travel and leisure services, as well as companies with substantial operations in the area of the World Trade Center. The investigation also included broad-based funds that could have been affected by a major shock to the U. S. economy. Ultimately, the investigators analyzed trading in 103 individual companies and 32 index or exchange-traded funds and examined more than 9.5 million securities transactions.
The investigators reviewed any trading activity that resulted in substantial profit from the terrorist attacks. Investments that profited from dropping stock prices drew great scrutiny, including short selling167 and the purchase of put options.168 The SEC has long experience in investigating insider trading violations, which can involve the use of these techniques by those who know of an impending event that will make stock prices fall.
The investigators also sought to determine who profited from well-timed investments in industries that benefited from the terrorist attacks, such as the stock of defense and security companies, and who timely liquidated substantial holdings in companies likely to suffer from the attacks.
The SEC investigators reviewed voluminous trading records to identify accounts that made trades that led to profits as a result of the attacks. The SEC followed up on any such trades by obtaining documents and, where appropriate, interviewing the traders to understand the rationale for the trades. The SEC also referred to the FBI any trade that resulted in substantial profit from the attacks—a much lower threshold for a criminal referral than it would normally employ. Consequently, the FBI conducted its own independent interviews of many of the potentially suspicious traders. The SROs, which have extensive market surveillance departments, played a key role in the SEC investigation by providing information and, in some cases, detailed reports to the commission. In addition, the SEC directly contacted 20 of the largest broker-dealers and asked them to survey their trading desks for any evidence of illicit trading activity. It also asked the Securities Industry Association—the broker-dealer trade group—to canvass its members for the same purpose.
The SEC investigation had built-in redundancies to ensure that any suspicious trading would be caught. For example, the SEC reviewed massive transaction records to detect any suspicious option trading and also obtained reports, known as the Large Option Position Reports and Open Interest Distribution Reports, that identified the holders of substantial amounts of options without regard to when those options were purchased. Similarly, to ensure full coverage, the SEC obtained information from a number of entities that play a role in facilitating short sales. Between these efforts, the work of the SROs, and the outreach to industry, the chief SEC investigator expressed great confidence that the SEC investigation had detected any potentially suspicious trade.
No Evidence of Illicit Trading in the United States.
The U. S. government investigation unequivocally concluded that there was no evidence of illicit trading in the U. S. markets with knowledge of the terrorist attacks. The Commission staff, after an independent review of the government investigation, has discovered no reason to doubt this conclusion.
To understand our finding, it is critical to understand the transparency of the U. S. markets. No one can make a securities trade in the U. S. markets without leaving a paper trail that the SEC can easily access through its regulatory powers. Moreover, broker-dealers must maintain certain basic information on their customers. It is, of course, entirely possible to trade through an offshore company, or a series of nominee accounts and shell companies, a strategy that can make the beneficial owner hard to determine. Still, the investigators could always detect the initial trade, even if they could not determine the beneficial owner. Any suspicious profitable trading through such accounts would be starkly visible. The investigators of the 9/11 trades never found any blind alleys caused by shell companies, offshore accounts, or anything else; they were able to investigate the suspicious trades they identified. Every suspicious trade was determined to be part of a legitimate trading strategy totally unrelated to the terrorist attacks.
Many of the public reports concerning insider trading before 9/11 focused on the two airline companies most directly involved: UAL Corp., the parent company of United Airlines, and AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines. Specifically, many people have correctly pointed out that unusually high volumes of put options traded in UAL on September 6–7 and in AMR on September 10.169.
When the markets opened on September 17, AMR fell 40 percent and UAL fell 43 percent. The suspicious options trading before the attacks fueled speculation that al Qaeda had taken advantage of the U. S. markets to make massive profits from its murderous attacks. The allegations had appeal on their face—just as al Qaeda used our sophisticated transportation system to attack us, it appeared to have used our sophisticated markets to finance itself and provide money for more attacks. But we conclude that this scenario simply did not happen.
Although this report will not discuss each of the trades that profited from the 9/11 attacks, some of the larger trades, particularly those cited in the media as troubling, are illustrative and typical both of the nature of the government investigation into the trades and of the innocent nature of the trading. The put trading in AMR and UAL is a case in point: it appeared that somebody made big money by betting UAL and AMR stock prices were going to collapse, yet closer inspection revealed that the transactions were part of an innocuous trading strategy.
The UAL trading on September 6 is a good example. On that day alone, the UAL put option volume was much higher than any surrounding day and exceeded the call option volume by more than 20 times—highly suspicious numbers on their face.170 The SEC quickly discovered, however, that a single U. S. investment adviser had purchased 95 percent of the UAL put option volume for the day. The investment adviser certainly did not fit the profile of an al Qaeda operative: it was based in the United States, registered with the SEC, and managed several hedge funds with $5.3 billion under management. In interviews by the SEC, both the CEO of the adviser and the trader who executed the trade explained that they—and not any client—made the decision to buy the put as part of a trading strategy based on a bearish view of the airline industry. They held bearish views for a number of reasons, including recently released on-time departure figures, which suggested the airlines were carrying fewer passengers, and recently disclosed news by AMR reflecting poor business fundamentals. In pursuit of this strategy, the adviser sold short a number of airline shares between September 6 and September 10; its transactions included the fortunate purchase of UAL puts. The adviser, however, also bought 115,000 shares of AMR on September 10, believing that their price already reflected the recently released financial information and would not fall any further. Those shares dropped significantly when the markets reopened after the attacks. Looking at the totality of the adviser’s circumstances, as opposed to just the purchase of the puts, convinced the SEC that it had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks or al Qaeda. Still, the SEC referred the trade to the FBI, which also conducted its own investigation and reached the same conclusion.
The AMR put trading on September 10 further reveals how trading that looks highly suspicious at first blush can prove innocuous. The put volume of AMR on September 10 was unusually high and actually exceeded the call volume by a ratio of 6:1—again, highly suspicious on its face. The SEC traced much of the surge in volume to a California investment advice newsletter, distributed by email and fax on Sunday, September 9, which advised its subscribers to purchase a particular type of AMR put options. The SEC interviewed 28 individuals who purchased these types of AMR puts on September 10, and found that 26 of them cited the newsletter as the reason for their transaction. Another 27 purchasers were listed as subscribers of the newsletter. The SEC interviewed the author of the newsletter, a U. S. citizen, who explained his investment strategy analysis, which had nothing to do with foreknowledge of 9/11. Other put option volume on September 10 was traced to similarly innocuous trades.
Another good example concerns a suspicious UAL put trade on September 7, 2001. A single trader bought more than one-third of the total puts purchased that day, establishing a position that proved very profitable after 9/11. Moreover, it turns out that the same trader had a short position in UAL calls—another strategy that would pay off if the price of UAL dropped. Investigation, however, identified the purchaser as a well-established New York hedge fund with $2 billion under management. Setting aside the unlikelihood of al Qaeda having a relationship with a major New York hedge fund, these trades looked facially suspicious. But further examination showed the fund also owned 29,000 shares of UAL stock at the time—all part of a complex, computer-driven trading strategy. As a result of these transactions, the fund actually lost $85,000 in value when the market reopened. Had the hedge fund wanted to profit from the attacks, it would not have retained the UAL shares.
These examples were typical. The SEC and the FBI investigated all of the put option purchases in UAL and AMR, drawing on multiple and redundant sources of information to ensure complete coverage. All profitable option trading was investigated and resolved. There was no evidence of illicit trading and no unexplained or mysterious trading. Moreover, there was no evidence that profits from any profitable options trading went uncollected.171.
The options trading in UAL and AMR was typical of the entire investigation. In all sectors and companies whose trades looked suspicious because of their timing and profitability, including short selling of UAL, AMR, and other airline stocks, close scrutiny revealed absolutely no evidence of foreknowledge. The pattern is repeated over and over. For example, the FBI investigated a trader who bought a substantial position in put options in AIG Insurance Co. shortly before 9/11. Viewed in isolation, the trade looked highly suspicious, especially when AIG stock plummeted after 9/11. The FBI found that the trade had been made by a fund manager to hedge a long position of 4.2 million shares in the AIG common stock. The fund manager owned a significant amount of AIG stock, but the fund had a very low tax basis in the stock (that is, it had been bought long ago and had appreciated significantly over time). Selling even some of it would have created a massive tax liability. Thus, the fund manager chose to hedge his position through a put option purchase. After 9/11, the fund profited substantially from its investment in puts. At the same time, however, it suffered a substantial loss on the common stock, and overall lost money as a result of the attacks.
In sum, the investigation found absolutely no evidence that any trading occurred with foreknowledge of 9/11. The transparency of the U. S. securities markets almost ensures that any such trading would be detectable by investigators. Even if the use of some combination of offshore accounts, shell companies, and false identification obscured the identity of the traders themselves, the unexplained trade would stand out like a giant red flag. The absence of any such flags corroborates the conclusion that there is no evidence any such trading occurred. Indeed, the leaders of both the SEC and FBI investigations into pre-9/11 trading expressed great confidence in this conclusion.
There is also no evidence that any illicit trading occurred overseas. Through its Office of International Affairs, the SEC sought the assistance of numerous foreign countries with active securities markets. The FBI also engaged with foreign law enforcement officials about overseas trading. There are two issues to consider with respect to the international investigation: overseas trading in U. S. securities and trading of foreign securities in overseas markets.
Trading of U. S. securities overseas.
The SEC sought the assistance of countries where there was significant trading of U. S. securities. Each of these countries had previously entered into information sharing agreements with the SEC to cooperate in securities investigations, and each willingly cooperated in the 9/11 investigation. According to the SEC, there is generally little trading of U. S. securities overseas, since U. S. securities trade primarily in U. S. markets. Thus, unusual trading in U. S. securities would not have been very hard for foreign regulators to detect. Each country the SEC contacted conducted an investigation and reported back to the SEC that there was no trading in U. S. securities in their jurisdiction that appeared to have been influenced by foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
The foreign investigators also helped investigate suspicious trading in the U. S. from offshore accounts. For example, the SEC investigation revealed that shortly before 9/11 an offshore account had taken a short position in a fund that tracked one of the major U. S. market indices—an investment that profited when the U. S. market declined. After 9/11, the offshore investor closed out the position, reaping $5 million in profit. The SEC’s Office of International Affairs solicited help from a European country to investigate further. Although this trade was highly suspicious on its face, the European country’s investigation revealed that this investor was an extremely wealthy European national who often speculated by taking short positions in the U. S. market. In fact, the same investor had employed this strategy to lose $8 million in the six months preceding 9/11.
Trading of foreign securities.
There is also no evidence that insider trading took place in the stock of any foreign company. The SEC asked its foreign counterparts to investigate trading in securities that trade primarily on foreign markets subject to foreign regulation. Indeed, a number of companies that suffered serious economic losses from the 9/11 attacks were foreign companies, which traded mainly on foreign markets. In particular, the insurance companies with the largest potential losses included Munich Reinsurance Co., Swiss Reinsurance Co., and Allianz AG, all foreign-based companies that primarily traded overseas.172 In addition to the SEC, the FBI team investigating the financial aspects of the 9/11 plot frequently dealt with foreign law enforcement officials after 9/11 and raised the trading issue.173 Neither the SEC nor the FBI was informed of any evidence of any illicit trading in advance of 9/11 in any foreign securities.
Shortly after 9/11, Ernst Welteke, president of the German Central Bank, made a number of public statements that insider trading occurred in airline and insurance company stock, and also in gold and oil futures. These preliminary claims were never confirmed. In fact, German officials publicly backtracked fairly soon after Mr. Welteke’s statement was issued. On September 27, a spokesman for the German securities regulator, BAWe (Bundesaufsichtsamt für den Wertpapierhandel), declared that while the investigation was continuing, “there is no evidence that anyone who had knowledge of the attacks before they were committed used it to make financial transactions.”174 On December 3, 2001, a spokesman for the BAWe said its investigation had revealed no evidence of illicit trading in advance of 9/11 and that the case remained open pending new information. The spokesman said separate investigations by state authorities had also yielded no information and had been closed. 175.
Commission staff interviewed German law enforcement officials who said that exhaustive investigation in Germany revealed no evidence of illicit trading. Moreover, both SEC and FBI officials involved in the trading investigation told the Commission staff that German investigators had privately communicated to them that there was no evidence of illicit trading in Germany before 9/11. The FBI legal attaché in Berlin forwarded a lead to the German BKA (Bundeskriminalamt), which reported back that the trading allegations lacked merit. It appears, then, that Welteke’s initial comments were simply ill-considered and unsupported by the evidence.176.
Other investigation corroborates the conclusion of no illicit trading.
Since 9/11, the U. S. government has developed extensive evidence about al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. The collected information includes voluminous documents and computers seized in raids in Afghanistan and throughout the world. Moreover, the United States and its allies have captured and interrogated hundreds of al Qaeda operatives and supporters, including the mastermind of the 9/11 plot and the three key plot facilitators. No information has been uncovered indicating that al Qaeda profited by trading securities in advance of 9/11. To the contrary, the evidence—including extensive materials reviewed by Commission staff—all leads to the conclusion that knowledge of the plot was closely held by the top al Qaeda leadership and the key planners. It strains credulity to believe that al Qaeda would have jeopardized its most important and secretive operation or any of its key personnel by trying to profit from securities speculation.
166. The SEC is an independent federal agency entrusted with enforcing the federal securities laws. Its Division of Enforcement has extensive experience in investigating insider trading. Because the SEC lacks authority to bring criminal cases, it regularly works jointly with the FBI and DOJ, as it did in this case, on potentially criminal securities law violations.
167. Short selling is a strategy that profits from a decline in stock price. A short seller borrows stock from a broker dealer and sells it on the open market. At some point in the future, he closes the transaction by buying back the stock and returning it to the lending broker dealer.
168. A put option is an investment that profits when the underlying stock price falls. A put option contract gives its owner the right to sell the underlying stock at a specified strike price for a certain period of time. If the actual price drops below the strike price, the owner of the put profits because he can buy stock cheaper than the price for which he can sell it. By contrast, a call option contract is an investment that profits when the underlying stock price rises. A call option contract gives its owner the right to buy the underlying stock at a specified strike price for a certain time period. People illicitly trading on inside information often have used options because they allow the trader to leverage an initial investment, so that a relatively small investment can generate huge profits.
169. See, e. g., September 18, 2001 Associated Press Report.
170. A high ratio of puts to calls means that on that day far more money was being bet that the stock price would fall than that the stock price would rise. Such a ratio is a potential indicator of insider trading — although it can also prove to have entirely innocuous explanations, as in this case.
171. The press has reported this claim, and the allegation even found its way into the congressional testimony concerning terrorist financing of a former government official. The government investigation would have detected such traders because the investigators focused on people who purchased profitable positions — regardless of when or whether or when they closed out the position. Moreover, officials at the SEC and the Options Clearing Corporation, a private entity that processes options trading, pointed out that any profitable options positions are automatically exercised upon the expiration date unless the customer explicitly directed otherwise. Any direction not to exercise profitable options is a highly unusual event, which the OCC double-checks by contacting the broker who gave them such instruction. The OCC personnel had no recollection of any such contacts after 9/11.
172. According to the SEC’s Chief, Market Surveillance, the countries with the most significant relevant trading of foreign corporations stock were the UK and Germany. The UK quickly and publicly reported it had found no illicit trading. See e. g., J. Moore, The Times, Bin Ladin did not Deal (October 17, 2001) (Chairman of Financial Services Authority reported that investigation failed to reveal evidence of irregular share dealings in London in advance of 9/11). Other countries publicly reported similar findings. See e. g., Associated Press Worldstream, Suspicion dispelled of insider trading in KLM shares before September 11 attacks (reporting conclusion of Dutch government investigation that sharp drop in share prices of the national airline days before 9/11 were not caused by people who knew of terrorist attacks).
173. The chief of the FBI team also raised the issue with CIA and asked it to be alert for any intelligence on illicit trading; he received no such reports from the CIA.
174. Agence France Presse (Sept. 27, 2001).
175. See Australian Financial Review (Dec 3, 2001).
176. The SEC investigated trading of American Depository Receipts (ADRs) in foreign companies. ADRs are receipts issued by a U. S. bank for the shares of a foreign corporation held by the bank. ADRs publicly trade on U. S. markets. This investigation revealed no illicit trading.
The Commission reported no reason for suspicion, then. And as an example explain that the purchaser of the United Airlines put options also bought 115,000 American Airlines shares on September 10, not a good sign of foreknowledge. They provide few other details, though, and so many 9/11 researchers continue to claim that only foreknowledge of the attacks could explain the put options. But in reality there were several other reasons why investors might have been gloomy about the future.
General economic context.
The purchase of high numbers of put options indicates a belief that share prices are about to fall. It's sometimes argued that this indicates foreknowledge of 9/11 because there was no other reason to expect falling prices at the time:
However, the "no news" line isn't exactly telling you the whole truth.
Here's the Washington Post discussing share prices on September 1 2001, for instance:
September 1, 2001 Saturday Final Edition.
Stocks Rise but End Week Sharply Lower.
BYLINE: Associated Press.
SECTION: FINANCIAL; Pg. E02.
DATELINE: NEW YORK Aug. 31.
Wall Street ended a terrible week with a gain today, but the modest advance only underscored how fragile and unruly the stock market has become.
The gain wasn't enough to bring the Dow Jones industrials back above 10,000, one day after the blue-chip average fell below that mark for the first time since April 9.
An unexpectedly strong report on factory orders sent stocks surging early in the session, but the good news was quickly overshadowed by investors' concerns about the lackluster economy and disappointing company profits.
"There is no news here today that would say we're about to reverse this thing on a permanent basis," said Bill Barker, investment strategy consultant at Dain Rauscher in Dallas.
The Dow, up more than 100 points in the early going, closed 30.17 higher at 9949.75. For the week, it was down 473.42, or 4.5 percent.
Broader stock indexes also were higher. The Nasdaq composite index rose 13.75, to 1805.43, while the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index edged up 4.55 to 1133.58.
For the week, the Nasdaq was down 111.37, or 5.8 percent, while the S&P 500 sank 51.35, or 4.3 percent.
Today's listless performance followed four straight days of declines that sent the Dow more than 500 points lower or nearly 5 percent. On Thursday, the Dow dropped 1.7 percent after several bad economic and corporate reports.
The fluctuations during today's trading were "just vacillation," said Jon Brorson, director of equities at Northern Trust in Chicago. "Investors are in an 'I don't want to shoot until I see the whites of their eyes' mode."
Concerned about the market's previous sell-offs, investors have been reluctant to buy because they sense no immediate possibility of a recovery in share prices. They're also waiting for a solid string of news from the government or companies that the economy may be ready for a turnaround.
"We need tangible evidence of a bottom to restore confidence," Brorson said.
The Commerce Department report today that factory orders rose 0.1 percent gave investors a reason to snap up bargains, but experts said the uptick was little more than temporary burst of buying.
Among Dow component stocks, Alcoa rose 63 cents, to $ 38.12, and J. P. Morgan was up 16 cents, to $ 39.40. IBM dropped 41 cents, to $ 99.95, and Hewlett-Packard fell 19 cents, to $ 23.21.
Overall, August was a bad month for investors, with the Dow 560.26 lower. The index hit its high point of the month on Aug. 2, closing at 10,551.18, but ended the month down 5.3 percent.
The New York Stock Exchange composite index fell 1.74, to 587.84; the American Stock Exchange index rose 2.42, to 873.40; and the Russell index of 2,000 small stocks rose 0.50, to 468.56. Advancing issues outnumbered declining ones by about 4 to 3 on the NYSE, where trading volume fell to 949.5 million shares, from 1.17 billion on Thursday. On the Nasdaq, advancers outnumbered decliners by 5 to 4 and volume totaled 1.16 billion shares, down from 1.7 billion. The price of the Treasury's benchmark 10-year note fell $ 2.19 per $ 1,000 invested, and its yield rose to 4.83 percent, from 4.80 percent late Thursday. The dollar fell against the Japanese yen and rose against the euro. In late New York trading, a dollar bought 118.79 yen, down from 119.40 yen late Thursday, and a euro bought 91.23 cents, down from 91.61 cents. Light, sweet crude oil for October delivery settled at $ 27.20 a barrel, up 65 cents, on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gold for current delivery fell on the Commodity Exchange division of the New York Mercantile Exchange to $ 274.40 a troy ounce from $ 275.40 on Thursday.
An improvement at the end of the week, but people generally think it's a blip, with the Dow Jones down 4.5% overall, and that's following a 5.3% fall in August.
General pessimism continued into the following week:
September 6, 2001 Thursday.
Markets head lower - again.
BYLINE: Tom Walker.
SECTION: Financial Pages.
Unless the stock market goes into reverse, the major indexes appear headed for new bear-market lows. Investors have already lost more than $2 trillion in market value since the peak of the market's spring rally.
قياسي & أمب؛ Poor's 500-stock index _ regarded by analysts as the best barometer of market trends _ closed on Thursday within 3.15 points, or 0.3 percent, of its 52-week low reached on April 4.
The technology-heavy Nasdaq composite index, which has suffered the biggest bear market losses, and the blue chip Dow Jones industrial average of mostly "old economy" stocks, are both within about 4 percent of their 52-week lows of five months ago.
"I think the problem you have to wonder about is how far tech stocks can pull things down," said Robert S. Robbins, chief investment strategist for SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Capital Markets.
It would not be unusual for the market to "test" its previous lows and even rebound for awhile.
But if stocks drop below previous lows, analysts believe the indexes could wind up falling much further. Many stocks are still trading at excessively high price-to-earnings valuations, analysts warn.
At some point, the market will hit bottom and begin a sustained rally. But that point appears more elusive than ever, even though some strategists think the worst is over.
"What it comes down to is some fundamental catalyst is needed that gets people to put their money (back in the market)," said Robbins.
That catalyst could be a major improvement in the economy.
Investors will get some idea of how well the economy was doing in August when the government releases the latest unemployment and job growth reports today. Most analysts believe the reports will unemployment than the 4.5 percent of July.
Everyone's waiting for the unemployment figures, then. And unfortunately, they turn out to be worse than expected:
September 8, 2001 Saturday Final Edition.
On Wall Street, Numbers Crush Recovery Hopes; Stocks Give Up Last Gains From Tech Boom.
BYLINE: Jerry Knight and Krissah Williams, Washington Post Staff Writers.
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A01.
The U. S. stock market plummeted yesterday, continuing a long and painful three-month decline that has reduced prices to levels not seen since before the Internet-inspired market surge almost three years ago.
The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, a broad-based measure of U. S. stocks regarded by professional investors as the single best measure of the overall market, ended the day at its lowest close since October 1998 as professional traders and mom-and-pop mutual fund investors alike stepped up their selling.
Over the past two weeks, the S&P 500 has declined 8.4 percent in the face of a relentless stream of discouraging news about corporate losses, declining sales, unemployment and the economy, both here and abroad. Stock markets around the globe also continued their steep declines yesterday.
There was widespread agreement among analysts that yesterday's report that the unemployment rate had jumped to 4.9 percent was a reality check for optimists who had been counting on the economy to turn upward.
"The unemployment really was shocking because it was so much greater than expected," said Mary Farrell, senior investment strategist at UBS PaineWebber. "We really are not experiencing the recovery we'd hoped for."
The S&P 500 fell for the ninth time in 10 days. It dropped almost 2 percent yesterday to close at 1085.78, down 20.62 points. The S&P is off 18 percent since the beginning of the year and down 28 percent from a year ago.
Two other broad-based indexes, the New York Stock Exchange composite index and the Wilshire 5000 stock index, plunged past their previous lows for the year. Those indexes hit levels not seen since November 1998.
The Dow Jones industrial average of 30 blue-chip stocks of companies that are considered leaders in their industries yesterday suffered its biggest single-day loss in five months, falling 2.4 percent to 9605.85, its lowest point since April. The Nasdaq composite index recorded its worst close since April 4, down 17.94 points, or 1.1 percent, at 1687.70.
For the last two weeks, investors have taken money out of mutual funds that invest in U. S. stocks. About $ 10.7 billion flowed out of equity funds in the week ending Sept. 5 and $ 6 billion left the prior week, according to TrimTabs, a research group. This is the first time funds have seen back-to-back outflows since the spring, when the market hit its low, according to Thomas McManus, equity strategist for Banc of America Securities.
Market watchers said selling by mutual funds is playing a major role in driving down the markets. When individual investors pull their money out of stock funds, the fund managers are forced to go to Wall Street to unload stocks, which tends to drive prices lower.
The mutual fund withdrawals could signify a sea change in the attitude of small investors, who have largely resisted the urge to bail out even though their stock portfolios and retirement savings accounts have crashed.
"The psychology has changed from 'you have got to be an investor' to 'you better stay away from stock,' " said Christopher Bonavico, portfolio manager at Transamerica Premier Aggressive Growth Fund in San Francisco.
"The psychology is becoming so negative that it is a good time to be a buyer," he added.
But this week there were no signs that Americans are buying stocks -- or much of anything else.
Several announcements led investors to worry about consumer behavior. The Big Three automakers this week all reported that their sales fell in August -- down about 8 percent at Ford and General Motors and 24 percent at DaimlerChrysler's Chrysler division.
In addition, most big retail chains also reported soft August sales -- except for discount chains and warehouse stores, which traditionally benefit when customers concerned about their finances "trade down" by doing their back-to-school shopping at, for instance, Target instead of Hecht's.
The hotel industry -- led by Bethesda-based Marriott -- reported this week that occupancy rates are also falling rapidly, triggering price wars that cut further into lodging industry profits.
Those reports of slowing consumer spending drove down stock prices earlier in the week because of fears that if consumers cut back, the United States could fall into a recession. That fear was magnified yesterday by the stunning increase in the jobless numbers to the highest level in almost four years.
"Unemployment figures have a significant psychological impact on people's propensity to consume," explained Eric Leo, chief investment officer for Allied Investment Advisors in Baltimore.
"The unemployment numbers came in certainly above what Wall Street was expecting," Leo said. "It's obviously showing signs that the economy is very sluggish. Whether it means we are going into a recession or not, it is still too soon to tell."
With business spending stagnant, consumers are the only bulwark between the United States and a recession, said William Meehan, chief market analyst of Cantor Fitzgerald. Investors are concerned that "if the consumer gets riled by job layoffs and they pull back or start to pay off some debt, we'll go to a full-blown recession."
The market was further jolted by more signs that corporations remain reluctant to make big investments.
The stocks of a pair of prominent Washington-area high-tech companies were whacked recently because their customers are holding back.
The shares of Manugistics Group Inc. of Bethesda fell 35 percent this week after the company said that its quarterly sales would be only about $ 70 million instead of the expected $ 90 million and, instead of a profit, it will post a loss. Manugistics makes software that companies use to do business with each other over the Internet.
Ciena Corp., of Linthicum, which manufactures fiber-optic communications hardware, warned of a similar slowdown in sales and saw its stock plunge 19 percent this week.
More disappointing sales and earnings are expected to be announced by companies issuing interim reports on the third quarter of the year, which for many corporations ends Sept. 30.
Yesterday's jobs report and the week's other pessimistic signals produced speculation that the Federal Reserve may be prompted to cut interest rates again soon. Meehan of Cantor Fitzgerald said that although that might help the economy, it's unlikely to boost the stock market. "There's no reason for me to expect that a move to the upside will be sustained even if the Fed cuts rates," he said.
Expectation of Fed rate cuts caused the bond market to rally. Prices of two-year U. S. Treasury notes rose as their yields, which go down when prices go up, declined to their lowest level in history, 3.51 percent, from 3.63 percent at Thursday's close. Similarly, yields on five-year Treasury notes fell to 4.30 percent, their lowest level in more than 40 years.
Eventually tax cuts and lower interest rates will help, said Farrell of UBS PaineWebber.
"We will start seeing positive earnings comparisons and that, combined with interest rates and inflation, should get us back into bull market status," she said. "It is just a waiting game until consumer confidence builds, and it's going to take some better employment figures to have that happen."
This all contributed to a significant decline in share prices just before 9/11.
There were plenty of people who seemed pessimistic about the future, then. And they had specific reasons to be buy put options for some 9/11-related companies, too.
Individual companies.
A number of different companies have been mentioned as possible targets of "insider dealing" prior to 9/11. But do these claims stand up to examination? Or might there have been other reasons to buy put options for them?
American Airlines.
The American Airlines (AMR) share price had peaked at over $40 at the beginning of 2001. By August 2001 it was closer to $35, though, and on September 10 it had dipped below $30.
The share price had fallen 13% in the month before 9/11, then. Might investors have thought it could fall further, and so be tempted to buy puts?
What’s more, immediately before 9/11 American Airlines released a string of bad news:
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS DEFERRING JET PURCHASES BEYOND FIRM ORDERS.
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR'S AMERICAN RETIRING 5 MORE 727 AIRCRAFT EARLY.
12:48pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR: AMERICAN TO RETIRE ENTIRE 727 FLEET BY END OF 2002.
12:46pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SEES Q3 LOSS 'CONSIDERABLY LARGER' THAN Q2'S.
12:47pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR ANTICIPATES 'SIGNIFICANT' LOSS IN Q4.
12:49pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR SAYS CUTTING 2001-02 CAPEX BY NEARLY $1.2 BLN.
12:50pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMERICAN AIR FEELS SQUEEZE OF FUEL PRICES, LABOR COSTS.
1:07pm 09/07/01 AMR warns of wider losses - William Spain.
2:44pm 09/07/01 Analyst: Airline Stocks Face At Least Another Bad Quarter.
2:51pm 09/07/01 [AMR] AMR DOWN 3.4% AT $30.08 FOLLOWING Q3 WARNING.
4:04pm 09/07/01 Boeing stock rating cut over commercial growth - August Cole.
Here's the official release:
FOR RELEASE: Friday, September 7, 2001.
AMR EXPECTS THIRD QUARTER LOSS, RETIRES MORE AIRCRAFT IN RESPONSE TO SLUGGISH ECONOMY.
FORT WORTH, Texas – AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines, Inc. and TWA Airlines LLC, said today that it expects a third quarter loss considerably larger than its second quarter loss as it continues to feel the combined effects of a weak economic climate, high fuel prices and increased labor costs. The company said that it also expects a significant fourth quarter loss.
To further rein in capacity while demand is weak, the company announced today that it would retire five more Boeing 727 aircraft earlier than originally planned. These five aircraft, which would have been retired during 2003, will now be retired during first quarter 2002. This latest change means that American will retire its entire Boeing 727 fleet by the end of 2002, a full year ahead of the original plan.
This latest round of capacity cuts brings to 41 the number of active aircraft that AMR will retire early in response to poor economic conditions and falling demand. As a result, capacity for the combined American/TWA entity will be flat in 2001 and will fall by almost one and a half percent in 2002.
American will continue to accept aircraft that are already on firm order and currently scheduled for delivery through 2004. However, the company has passed on recent purchase rights for additional aircraft that would have been delivered in 2002 and 2003.
By not exercising these purchase rights, and trimming other spending, American has reduced its 2001-2002 capital-spending plan by almost $1.2 billion since the beginning of this year.
Tom Horton, AMR’s chief financial officer said the company is committed to sustaining its industry-leading financial strength. "We’ll continue to take prudent steps consistent with this very tough operating climate. American’s financial strength and flexibility are important assets at a time like this."
Here's how the updates were interpreted in the Dallas Morning News of September 8, 2001:
September 8, 2001, Saturday.
American Airlines Warns Investors of Expected Deficit.
BYLINE: By Terry Maxon.
AMR Corp. warned investors Friday that it would lose a lot more money this quarter than last quarter and would have a "significant" fourth-quarter deficit.
If the losses materialize as expected, it will mark the first time since 1993 that AMR has posted a full-year loss. It will also be the first time since 1992 that AMR has lost money in every quarter.
AMR, parent of American Airlines Inc. and TWA Airlines LLC, said it was grounding another five Boeing 727s early in response to poor demand. That means that its entire Boeing 727 fleet will be retired by the end of 2002 -- a year ahead of the original schedule.
Since early 2001, AMR said, it has cut its capital spending budget by nearly $ 1.2 million for this year and next.
"We'll continue to take prudent steps consistent with this very tough operating climate," said Tom Horton, AMR's chief financial officer, in a statement. "American's financial strength and flexibility are important assets at a time like this."
AMR made a less drastic warning Aug. 13 when it said it expected to lose money for the third quarter and full year 2001 "if current economic conditions persist."
Airline analyst Ray Neidl with ABN Amro Securities LLC said he was struck by the firmness of AMR's warning Friday, without the ambivalence of earlier warnings.
"They're more or less throwing in the towel and saying they're seeing no changes through the end of the year," Mr. Neidl said.
AMR shares closed down $ 1 to $ 30.15, off 3.2 percent in trading Friday on the New York Stock Exchange, and most other airline shares also finished down.
Mr. Neidl said he expects other airlines to issue similar warnings in the next few weeks as the third quarter shudders to a close.
Most airlines have warned that they have seen a sharp drop in the number of high-dollar business travelers, the ones that buy the most expensive first-class and coach tickets. Continental Airlines Inc. said last week that the revenue it received last month declined 12 to 14 percent per seat mile.
At the same time, high jet fuel prices and rising labor costs have increased the airlines' expenses.
Traffic has remained at or near last year's levels, with leisure travelers lured by continual fare sales this summer. However, Mr. Neidl said he's worried that consumers will quit responding to the fare sales.
"That's when airline profits could really start taking a whack," Mr. Neidl said. "I'm not sure we're going to reach that point, but that's the thing that worries me going forward."
In the second quarter ended June 30, AMR lost $ 105 million before special items, or $ 507 million including write-offs from decreased value of assets, primarily airplanes. It lost $ 43 million in the first quarter.
This year's losses will break a long winning streak for the Fort Worth-based carrier, which earned $ 813 million last year and more than $ 5 billion between 1996 and 2000.
After Friday's warning, airline analyst Michael J. Linenberg of Merrill Lynch Global Securities lowered his estimates for AMR.
Mr. Linenberg, who had predicted a third-quarter loss for AMR of 70 cents a share, now is predicting a loss of $ 1.10 a share. For the fourth quarter, he's predicting the airline will lose $ 1.38 a share, down from 30 cents a share. For the full year excluding the special items, he is predicting a loss of $ 3.45 per share, compared with his previous estimate of $ 1.95 a share. "And I'm not the lowest guy on the Street," Mr. Linenberg said.
Each penny per share represents about $ 46 million to $ 47 million, making his prediction for a full-year loss of around $ 530 million excluding the special items.
Mr. Linenberg said he believes AMR has begun accruing expenses for its new pilots contract, now under negotiation, and for Transport Workers Union contracts that are up for approval by mechanics, ground workers and others.
In addition, the integration of TWA Airlines into American may be more costly than executives planned, further increasing AMR's expenses, he said.
AMR said since last spring, it has decided to retire 41 airplanes early. Its revised estimate is that American and TWA will have the same capacity combined in 2001 as last year, and capacity will decline nearly 1.5 percent next year.
When the year began, American had expected to expand its capacity by 3 percent in 2001.
So this could be "the first time since 1993 that AMR has posted a full-year loss", earnings estimates were being downgraded, and one analyst is worried "that consumers will quit responding to the fare sales", which, if it happens, could make the situation even worse.
And this is the context in which investors may have been considering American Airlines on Saturday September 8th, 2001. The 9/11 Commission tell us that a newsletter recommended buying put options one day later, on the 9th, and the largest number were bought on the 10th. It seems to us that, when you consider the economic situation at the time, and the specific problems faced by AMR, this is an entirely plausible situation. No foreknowledge of 9/11 is required.
Even if you disagree, though, it's plain that a significant profit warning the trading day before the put options were purchased is at the very least a relevant factor. And yet, those pushing the "foreknowledge" argument never seem to mention it at all. Why might that be?
United Airlines.
United Airlines didn't see the same specific bad news as AMR, however it was already known as a very poor performer within the industry. In fact, as CNNfn pointed out on August 24th 2001, it was losing more money than anyone else:
August 24, 2001 Friday.
SHOW: BUSINESS UNUSUAL 08:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
Decline in Business Travel, CNNfn.
GUESTS: Marilyn Adams.
BYLINE: Kitty Pilgrim.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNNfn ANCHOR, BUSINESS UNUSUAL: The economic downturn has put the airline industry in a tail spin. Now the decline in business travel, which according to 'USA Today" accounts for 2/3 of airline revenue, has hurt companies across the board. Have we hit rock bottom? Well our next guest says no. Joining me now from Miami is Marilyn Adams, business travel writer for the money section of "USA Today." And thanks very much for joining us.
MARILYN ADAMS, USA TODAY: Sure, thanks Kitty.
PILGRIM: Really it is quite dire out there in terms of business travel and anyone who works for a company has had the memo, no travel. How far more can this industry take?
ADAMS: Well, it's pretty bad. There was a survey recently by Delta Air Lines (Company: Delta Air Lines Inc.; Ticker: DAL; URL: delta-air/) that showed that business travel at the top 30 markets is off 19 percent on average. But in some parts of the country like San Francisco it's off 35 percent and other airlines have said that some companies are cutting their travel budgets by as much as 60 percent. As Gordon Bethune said "they're not sending poor people to the business meeting any more." Maybe they're not even sending one.
ADAMS: They're doing that business by phone or on the Web. They're find other ways of doing it.
PILGRIM: How much do you think the industry can absorb? You crunched the numbers of how important business travel is to airlines. How much money are airlines losing on this?
ADAMS: Well, United Airlines (Company: UAL Corporation; Ticker: UAL; URL: ual) is losing the most so far this year. There has been one Wall Street estimate that they could lose in excess of $900 million this year which would set a record for any one airline's loss in a single year. It could be even worse than we saw in the early '90s when we had the Pershing Gulf war coupled with a recession. This is a very tough time and the airlines have been kind of surprised by how precipitous the cuts have been at companies.
Air Transport World said the losses surprised Wall Street, especially in comparison with their trading the previous year:
UAL Corp., parent of United Airlines, surprised Wall Street with a much-worsethan-anticipated loss of $292 million compared with income of $336 million in the year-ago period. Current-period results exclude potential charges associated with the failed acquisition of US Airways Group that could increase the loss by $116 million on a pre-tax basis.
President Rono Dutta said, "Clearly the quarter was very challenging for us." He cited the weaker economy for causing a reduction in business travel. United has been especially hard hit owing to its exposure to high-tech West Coast-originating traffic that has dried up in the wake of the dot meltdown.
Dutta also acknowledged that United has to readjust to its "high cost structure." To address the issue, it has embarked on a virtual hiring freeze and is spreading out deliveries of 18 A319/A.320 aircraft previously set to arrive in the first quarter of 2003. It previously announced plans to speed the retirement of 75 727s, taking out 33 this year, 32 in 2002 and 10 in 2003. It also is reducing nonhub flying and substituting RJ service operated by its Regional partners on some feeder flights. Capacity for the fourth quarter will decline 1%, down from previous plans to boost it by 4%. For 2002 UA will shrink capacity 1%. Dutta said the airline is not forecasting a return to profit in the third or fourth quarters and is "not forecasting anything for next year."
And Business Week says that, while there are "some signs of improvement", the airline business is facing major problems:
September 3, 2001.
SUDDENLY, CARRIERS CAN'T GET OFF THE GROUND.
BYLINE: By Michael Arndt in Chicago, with William Symonds in Boston, and bureau reports.
SECTION: NEWS; Analysis & Commentary: Airlines; Number 3747; Pg. 36.
LENGTH: 966 words.
HIGHLIGHT: Slumping business and vacationer demand proves weighty.
Travel to and from high-tech hot spots has been particularly hard hit. American Airlines Inc. says business traffic at Austin, Tex., Boston, and San Jose, Calif., is down 15% from a year earlier. At UAL Corp., parent of United Airlines, summer business bookings at San Francisco and Dallas have been down as much as 34% in some months. People are cutting discretionary spending, and unfortunately flying fits into this category, says UAL President Rono J. Dutta. UAL is forecast to lose $ 985 million this year.
More bad news is on the horizon. Vacationers, previously lured by fare sales and cheap tickets, aren't filling as many seats as they did only a month ago. And once the summer ends, tourist traffic tends to dry up. Meanwhile, international traffic -- another high-margin business -- is also weakening, as the economies of Europe, Asia, and Latin America head south. When the general economy catches a cold, the airline industry catches pneumonia, says analyst Kevin C. Murphy of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & شركة
Demand isn't the only problem. Fuel prices are inching higher, while wages are still climbing. Air Transport's Swierenga figures labor expenses will reach nearly $ 52 billion in 2002, up 15% from the $ 45.3 billion in 2000. He also says airlines are now paying 60% more for fuel than in 1999. REDUCTION. To gain some altitude, the biggest airlines are casting off whatever they can. Almost all are reducing the number of flights they offer. Northwest is in its second round of layoffs this year, with plans to cut 1,625 of its 53,000 workers by year-end. American has lopped $ 200 million from its capital budget this year and plans an additional $ 700 million cut in 2002.
Most radical are restructuring plans at money-losing US Airways Group Inc. Blocked by the Justice Dept. from selling itself to UAL, US Airways wants to remake itself into a lower-cost regional company. It plans to replace 60 big jets with smaller regional ones that should be easier to fill and cheaper to fly.
Still, there are some signs of improvement. Rosenbluth International, a large corporate travel agency, says that in the five-week period ended Aug. 17, corporate bookings were up as much as 20% for 18 of its 25 biggest accounts. And a survey of 200 companies released on Aug. 20 by the National Business Travel Assn. finds that 74% plan to spend the same or more on travel next year compared with 2001. That, of course, wouldn't restore traffic to pre-slowdown levels. Says Rosenbluth CEO Hal F. Rosenbluth, I don't think the climb out will be anywhere near as vertical as the decline was. Looks like business travelers may be forced to brown-bag it for a while, as the industry struggles to stay aloft.
Even the good news came with qualifications.
September 6, 2001, Thursday.
United Airlines' August Traffic Rises 9.1 Percent.
United Airlines' (NYSE: UAL) total scheduled revenue passenger miles (RPMs) rose 9.1 percent in August vs. the comparable month in 2000.
The airline's passenger load factor increased to 78.4 percent from 75.0 percent a year ago. Seat capacity was up 4.4 percent.
"While our traffic and load factor were up in August vs. last year, any comparisons should take into account the operational disruptions a year ago which sharply reduced our traffic," said Rono Dutta, United's president.
That is, at least some of the increase is coming from a very low base.
The end result of all this is that the share price was declining, immediately prior to 9/11.
Put it all together, and some analysts have said there's no other explanation required.
Historically, Hamilton continues, "airlines are a poor investment and have never made money for investors. There are lots of reasons to sell these stocks short that have nothing to do with Sept. 11. I haven't seen anything that raises any red flags on at least these two stocks when you consider the numbers. With United there were 2,075 put options, with each put option representing 100 shares of stock. So someone had control of 207,500 shares of United. The stock dropped from $31 to $18, so that's a $13 profit, or $2.7 million on the put options. If you were going to plan something as complex as taking down those towers, why wouldn't you have made a billion or $10 billion betting on oil or shorting the NASDAQ?"
Anyway, says Hamilton, "recall that the market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway and it would have been a good time to short them. I like to think of this as an urban legend now. I think it is the World Trade Center urban legend."(Source.
In response, brokerage firms cut their ratings for AMR and other airlines. Hotel analysts, realizing that fewer travelers meant fewer overnight stays, followed suit. The short positions and volume of put options rose sharply across the travel industry -- which has been cited repeatedly in news reports as possible evidence of illegal trading.
American and United were hit particularly hard.
"The two airline companies that are the most closely related are American and United," said Paul Foster, a market strategist with BeyondTheBull, a market information firm. "I don't believe this has anything to do with the terrorists." (مصدر)
Boeing are occasionally referenced as a target for 9/11-related insider trading.
However, what you'll rarely see are any contemporary comments from the Media. For example, the Chicago Tribune published the following on Saturday September 8th:
BYLINE: By Janet Kidd Stewart, Tribune staff reporter.
SECTION: BUSINESS; ZONE: N; Pg. 1.
The double whammy of rising unemployment and plummeting stock prices converged Friday to inflict more pain on legions of American investors.
The surprise jump in August unemployment sparked a broad sell-off that pushed the Dow Jones industrial average down almost 235 points, to 9605.85, its lowest level since early April. The benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 20.62, to 1085.78, its lowest close since October 1998.
Also weighing on stocks was renewed concern about corporate profits. Shares of American Airlines parent AMR fell more than 3 percent, to $30.15, after it warned of a deeper-than-expected third-quarter loss. Aircraft giant and Dow component Boeing, closing its first week as a Chicago-based company, broke through its 52-week low Friday, dropping 7.5 percent, to $45.18, after a Morgan Stanley analyst downgraded the stock and warned that a business upturn is several quarters away.
No surprise about falling share prices here. With airlines already reporting bad news, it would hardly seem surprising if some investors might believe they would fall further still.
British Airways.
There was speculation that in the days before 11 September, terrorist groups engaged in sophisticated share trading. This involved 'short-selling' airline shares - selling the stock, waiting for the price to drop, then buying it back and pocketing the difference.
The Financial Services Authority investigated a large trade in BA involving put options - share options giving the right to sell at a fixed price. In effect, this was a bet that BA shares would fall. The FSA found no evidence of terrorist involvement and said the deals were not linked to the attacks. It said: 'A sizeable put option in the shares of a British airline turned out to have been on behalf of another airline, as part of an overall hedging strategy.'
Lufthansa this weekend denied the company was involved. But share traders have confirmed the German operator's connection. A stockbroker said: 'Speculating like this is an odd way for a company to use shareholder funds.' It is also surprising that Lufthansa and its advisers speculated at a time when the industry was already facing recession.
The head of one of Europe's most successful airlines said: 'I don't know why one airline would be punting on a rival's shares. It's hard enough just to run an airline-without doing this fancy stuff.'
Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm told parliament the sharp drop in share prices of the national airline days before the assaults was not caused by people who knew of the terrorist's plans.
The Securities Board of the Netherlands, the market regulator, investigated the heavy volume of put options in KLM shares, said to be 10 times higher than normal, during a two-day period before the attacks. A put option is a contract that gives a holder the right to sell an asset at a specified price before a certain date.
"We know who bought the contracts and we know why. And fortunately it had nothing to do with terrorism, or insider knowledge about that," Zalm told Dutch television.
Zalm declined to give more details, but he said "everything was OK."
In the three trading days prior to the attacks, KLM shares plunged from 16 euros (dlrs 14.72) to 14.20 euros (dlrs 13.06), a 12 percent fall.
Swiss Re.
Options Hotline.
There's plenty of context around the trades to explain why they were made, then.
And in one particular example, the case of the September 10th American Airlines put options, we have considerably more.
A 9/11 Commission document, for instance, named the newsletter that was responsible for a large part of the unusual volume.
To be clear, we're not saying you have to believe the SEC's verdict. However, they have now told us which newsletter was responsible. The tip itself isn't available online, but we obtained a copy:
Stocks Skid On A Jump In The Jobless Rate. This Week, We Take To The Air.
This past week, stocks were pressed to the downside -- with the highlight being Friday's blue chip decline. Wall Street was surprised by a spike, to a four-year high, in the jobless rate. And the market took its lumps. This week, I see opportunity for you to have fun and profit with an airline play. So, without further ado, here's…
This Week's Option Recommendation.
Buy the AMR October $30 put for $170, or less, good this week.
Shares of AMR Corp. trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "AMR". The symbol for this option reco is "AMRVF". American Airlines closed the week at $30.15. The 52-week range for AMR is $27.62-$43.93. My downside price target is $22-$26.
The major airline is under pressure. At $25, each $30 put would have $500 of intrinsic value. If AMR is at or above $30 on the third Friday in October, your option will expire worthless. That is your risk. Set your stop-loss at $100, to preserve capital, in case my expectations go awry.
That's buy the AMR October $30 put for $170, or less, good this week.
So this is direct evidence that a particular individual - Steve Sarnoff, the editor of the newsletter - was recommending the purchase of AMR put options based on economic arguments only, just as we've argued was appropriate.
Perhaps some will want to expand the conspiracy to include Sarnoff, too, and claim he was somehow tipped off about the attacks. But this makes little sense. Why would the conspirators care about the Sarnoff or the Options Hotline? Where is the benefit in enriching a few of his subscribers?
A simpler explanation, surely, is that the situation unfolded exactly as it appeared. The airlines and the US economy were in trouble throughout 2001; American delivered a series of profit warnings on Friday, September 7th; Sarnoff felt the share price had further to fall, and on Sunday recommended purchasing puts; some of his subscribers did so on Monday; and entirely coincidentally, the attacks occurred on Tuesday.
Buzzy Krongard.
There's still the question of a "CIA link" to these trades, of course, as discussed by Mike Ruppert:
Until 1997 A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A. B. بنى. A. B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U. S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U. S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.
Ruppert himself pointed out that Krongard left in 1998, though. You might have thought the link expired at that point, but apparently we're supposed to believe it was still significant. Why, though? If, let's say, Government conspirators wanted to engage in a perfectly legal transaction to purchase put options in United and American Airlines, then why would it matter which bank they used? Especially if you're assuming they had enough power to block any investigation? It's not as though the transactions could remain hidden.
Presumably the explanation would be that people at this bank would be willing to help the CIA profit from the deaths of thousands of American citizens. There's not a jot of evidence for that, though, and Ruppert himself points out that Bankers Trust had changed ownership since Krongard's day, being acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. Are the Germans in on it, too?
Finally, although some sites quote the trades as all or mostly being linked to AB Brown, you might notice they never post references to prove that. لماذا ا؟ Because if they did you'd read something like this.
The best we have is an unidentified source saying that "at least some" (not "most") of the trades for one of the shares in question (not "all") was made through Alex Brown. If it was so vital to use a "CIA-linked bank" to make these trades, then why not use all of them?
It's clear that, for the conspiracy to stand up, we must make an increasing number of assumptions. That the conspirators needed to use a particular bank, for instance, even though they have the power to cover up just about any investigation. That the conspirators had influence at AB Brown, even though Krongard had left years before. That the report about Deutsche Bank being involved in the first place is accurate, and that the conspirators would be stupid enough to let this information get out, but clever enough to spread the trades across other banks (which presumably must be "CIA-linked", too). Maybe this is all true, but it would help if there was some evidence to support any of these claims.
Perhaps the strongest support for the "insider trading" claims comes from Professor Allen M Poteshman from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He decided to investigate this further, analysing market data statistically to try and assess the trades’ significance. Professor Poteshman points out several reasons to question the foreknowledge argument:
However, he then devises a statistical model, which he suggests is consistent with foreknowledge after all:
Options traders, corporate managers, security analysts, exchange officials, regulators, prosecutors, policy makers, and—at times—the public at large have an interest in knowing whether unusual option trading has occurred around certain events. A prime example of such an event is the September 11 terrorist attacks, and there was indeed a great deal of speculation about whether option market activity indicated that the terrorists or their associates had traded in the days leading up to September 11 on advance knowledge of the impending attacks. This speculation, however, took place in the absence of an understanding of the relevant characteristics of option market trading.
This paper begins by developing systematic information about the distribution of option market activity. It constructs benchmark distributions for option market volume statistics that measure in different ways the extent to which non–market maker volume establishes option market positions that will be profitable if the underlying stock price rises or falls in value. The distributions of these statistics are calculated both unconditionally and when conditioning on the overall level of option activity on the underlying stock, the return and trading volume on the underlying stock, and the return on the overall market. These distributions are then used to judge whether the option market trading in AMR, UAL, the Standard and Poor’s airline index, and the S&P 500 market index in the days leading up to September 11 was, in fact, unusual.
The option market volume ratios considered do not provide evidence of unusual option market trading in the days leading up to September 11. The volume ratios, however, are constructed out of long and short put volume and long and short call volume; simply buying puts would have been the most straightforward way for someone to have traded in the option market on foreknowledge of the attacks. A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.
(And note, he's only saying "consistent with". There are those who pretend this means he's proved trading with inside knowledge. They are wrong. As usual.)
One issue that troubles us about this is the lack of analysis of the string of bad news delivered by American Airlines on September 7th, the trading day before September 10th, when the most significant trading occurred. Especially in the context of falling share prices at the time. Professor Poteshman told us via email:
But can you really treat the news so simply? Professor Paul Zarembka supports the claims, saying:
But we’re not saying they were random, rather that they may have been a rational response to significant bad news delivered the day before. Poteshman is essentially saying (with regard to AMR) is that people bought too many puts for that to be explained by the 9/7 news, therefore another explanation is required, but how can you say that without analysing the news itself? After all, if that news had been “we’ll probably be bankrupt in six months” then the put ratios would probably have been even more significant, and Poteshman’s model given even more confirmation of “unusual option market activity”, but would that have made the idea of foreknowledge more likely? بالطبع لا. Obviously the AMR news was less dramatic, but we would still say that you cannot accurately judge the significance of these trades until you take it into consideration.
Another complication here comes in the fact that put volumes in these shares were normally low, from what we’ve read, and this obviously makes it easier for spikes to appear. The 9/11 Commission said:
The September 6th UAL puts would automatically appear significant, then, even though only one investor was reportedly behind them. But he was an institutional investor (at least according to the Commission), someone with a lot of money to spend, his purchases are always going to stand out. But does that really mean you can mathematically indicate it’s likely that investor had foreknowledge of 9/11, without considering the other market conditions and information available at the time?
And it’s a similar story with the AMR trades. Professor Poteshman appears to be saying that the traders were more pessimistic about the future of AMR than they should have been, that they over-reacted to the news and bought more puts than he’d expect, but newsletters and share tipsters regularly deliver spikes in trading, at least here in the UK. Many are followed by people who do little research themselves, and just follow the recommendations provided. So the tipster's view becomes extremely important: if he says "buy puts" then many of them will simply follow suit, and the higher the circulation of the newsletter, the greater the resulting spike of “abnormal trades” will be.
What's more, as we mentioned above, we now know the newsletter whose recommendation was responsible for the purchase of many of the 9/10 AMR puts: the Options Hotline. We also know that editor Steve Sarnoff was responsible for suggesting this particular trade, and we have his alert explaining why.
And so, unless Sarnoff is about to be accused of somehow capitalising on advance knowledge of the attacks, we can see that there was a reasonable economic case for purchasing AMR puts on 9/10, in which case they can't be regarded as clear foreknowledge of the attacks. (There is still an unknown institutional investor, but if Sarnoff believed the put options were a good recommendation then there's no reason to believe that others might not have thought the same.)
And while this is only one date considered by Poteshman, if his measure leads to an incorrect conclusion for the September 10 trades, then how can we be sure it's accurate elsewhere?
Anyway, Screw Loose Change raised a similar issue or two that you might want to consider. And please don’t end this here: go read Poteshman’s paper, just to assess this for yourself. If you’re not great at statistics then some of it will make your eyes glaze over, guaranteed, but there are also interesting comments that are accessible to everyone, so overall it’s well worth a read.
Objections.
There are those who say market conditions before 9/11 couldn't possibly explain the put options. A number of objections are raised to support this point of view.
Too specific.
The trades were "too specific", we're told. Why were only American and United Airlines affected, for instance, the two carriers that would be involved in 9/11?
One partial answer here is that there were concerns over other airlines:
And Alexander Rose has written that short interest in other airlines was up, if not by as much as with United and American:
There was a general expectation that stock prices would fall, then. But why did these airlines suffer in particular? We've already seen that American Airlines released surprisingly bad news on the 6th of September. United was the largest carrier, so if an investor believed the downturn was a general one then it would be natural to expect them to suffer even more, and a New York Times article confirms that the companies could be expected to perform in a similar way:
If you were an investor who read about the American Airlines profit warning over the weekend, then, it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to assume that United Airlines next figures would be even worse, and that you could profit by purchasing some put options.
There were more companies than just the airlines involved, of course, but were these put options really as targeted as is sometimes claimed? The book "Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism" tells us that "the Bank of New York and Cantor Fitzgerald financial services were the stock brokerage companies that suffered the most damage on September 11", with Cantor losing nearly 700 people and the Bank of New York losing major telecoms facilities. But we've seen no suggestion of suspicious trading in either company directly (though there's a less quoted issue re: a Cantor network: see here).
The reality is that when you get away from the airlines, most of the other targeting is considered in retrospect. That is, people were looking at companies with high put options prior to 9/11, considering those that might be said to be affected by the attacks, and presenting those as the most suspicious. But there were many different companies within the WTC, multiple insurers responsible for its insurance cover, and a host of other companies that would see their businesses seriously affected by 9/11. With the stock market falling, surely you would expect at least some of these to have put options "spikes" over any particular few weeks?
Another common objection tells us the put options were too high to be normal trading. But is that really true?
The first complication here comes in determining what the volumes actually were. Go to Prison Planet, for instance, and you might come across this archived story that seems to tell you:
4,744 on UAL over two days, then 4,515 on SMR in one day. That's all clear, right? Except it isn't. Another archived article at the same site tells us this:
And an article on financial site The Street says there were 2,000 UAL put options purchased on the 6th of September, with 1,535 AMR puts bought on September 10. So which is correct?
Figuring out the significance of these volumes is equally problematic. 9/11 Research uses the following quotes:
That's 285 and 60 times more than average, then? Not according to the Chicago Tribune:
The "285 times higher than average" becomes only "four times" higher than normal for United Airlines, while American's "60 times average" is now "nearly 11 times its average daily volume for the year".
There could be many explanations for this. The calculations may be defining "normal" and "average" in different ways, for instance. Perhaps they're looking at different sets of put figures (it's a complicated business). Whatever the cause, it's plain that there are significant contradictions here, even between figures produced in mainstream media stories. Don't take any "x times bigger than usual" claims as necessarily true.
It's also worth noting that put option spikes aren't uncommon, as Insight revealed:
They're using the lower figure for American Airlines put options here. However, the United Airlines spikes of 8,212 and 8,072 (if accurate) show that the 9/11 figures, while high, were in no sense unique.
And as the same article points out, these figures weren't high in terms of option trading. The volume could have been even higher, and there were safer ways to do it:
If these volumes really weren't so exceptional then it raises a problem for another aspect of this story, a claim originated by Mike Ruppert and retold here by David Ray Griffin:
This is applying hindsight in a fairly dramatic manner, and it’s also leaving out crucial information: the American puts followed the trading day after the company had released a major profit warning, when you’d expect investors to believe the shares had further to fall, and the United Airlines trade volumes were lower than the spikes that occurred in March and April. If a United Airlines spike of 8,072 in March didn’t suggest an imminent attack, then why should 4,744 puts over two days in September have any more effect?
Related Issues.
Mayo Shuttock III.
On 9/11 Mayo Shattuck III] was chairman of Deutsche Banc Alex Brown, the US private client and asset management division of Deutsche Banc. This has been tied in some quarters to the put options purchased before the attacks, as History Commons illustrates:
We've seen not the slightest evidence to support such a claim, though, and at first glance it makes no real sense. Why would Brown resign because of the put options, which weren't yet even being reported in the press? If anyone has an explanation that's based on more than conjecture then we've yet to see it.
Further, while History Commons do their best to put a conspiratorial spin on this by saying "no reason is given" for the resignation, that simply isn't true.
September 17, 2001 Monday Final Edition.
SECTION: FINANCIAL; Pg. E01.
. After 16 years with venerable Baltimore investment firm Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, Chairman Mayo A. Shattuck III has resigned. The 46-year-old executive led Alex. Brown through two mergers, the first with Bankers Trust and the second two years ago when the firm was acquired by German investment house Deutsche Bank.
Shattuck is leaving the firm to get away from the strain of helming an investment bank that essentially has headquarters on two continents -- Baltimore and Frankfurt, Germany, company executive said. "The combination of a lot of travel to Frankfurt and 3 a. m. conference calls just got a bit wearying," said Ben Griswold, the Baltimore-based senior chairman at Deutsche Banc Alex. بنى.
According to officials at the bank, Shattuck is to stay on indefinitely as a senior adviser and join the boards of two Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown subsidiaries, Bankers Trust Corp. and Bankers Trust Co.
A reason for the resignation was given, and it turns out that Shattuck was maintaining a connection with the company. Anyone might claim that the reason is false, and doubtless they will, but without some - or indeed any - evidence to support that, it's hard to see where this story will go.
استنتاج.
We cannot prove that the pre-9/11 put options weren't made with foreknowledge of the attacks. And we suspect not even those who instigated the trades could do that. We now know that Steve Sarnoff was the author of the 9/9 newsletter recommending the purchase of American Airline put options, for example. The institutional investor is yet to be named, but even if they were, and they explained in detail their reasons for that decision, that will never constitute solid proof of anything. And so those who want to believe something else will continue to claim that maybe they had received a tip-off from elsewhere.
What we can show, however, is that the usual discussion of these issues leaves out a considerable amount of relevant detail.
Books like "The Hidden History of 9/11" claim the 9/11 Commission footnote was their only word on the topic, for instance, ignoring the details provided in the Terrorist Finance monograph we've quoted.
We've not seen anyone even begin to fully address the economic circumstances of the time, including the general fall in share prices in the weeks before 9/11, and the bad news that specifically related to United and American Airlines.
The significance of the put options volumes appears to be exaggerated. Previous spikes are rarely even mentioned. And while high level conspirators might be able to cover up investigations in the US, we've yet to see any explanation of why inquiries in other countries revealed nothing, despite dramatic headlines when the stories first appeared.
In short, we believe there are explanations for the put options, other than 9/11 foreknowledge: it's just that you're not being told what they are.
المراجع.
These articles are neutral, or tend to support the idea that the put options may indicated 9/11 foreknowledge.
These 9/11 articles tend to support the foreknowledge claims:
These articles raise at least some questions about whether the put option purchases support any claim of foreknowledge about 9/11. Some concentrate only on terrorist or bin Laden connections, and so are of limited use in addressing whether insiders in the US were involved, however all have some useful points to make.