Bonzo

David Einhorn: The Irony of It All

I wasn't going to bother to respond to raj24 since he basically spewed, almost verbatim, the argument that Einhorn, Cramer and Greenberg have all made in Einhorn's defense. However, he is dead wrong on one point that seldom seems to be recognized. If you look at the general media coverage going back over the past couple years, it has been either balanced, telling both sides of the story, or heavily tilted in Einhorn's favor. The idea that the media has been out to get short-sellers or Einhorn is pure fiction.

I agree that short-sellers are a necessary part of the market, but they should play by the same rules everybody else does. ALD makes regular appearances on the Regulation-SHO list for high failures to deliver. This is prime evidence that there is naked (illegal) short-selling in their stock.

As for regulation, all holders of more than 1% of a company's stock are required to file with the SEC. However, one can be short any amount of a company's stock without having to file anything with the SEC. I really don't see any difference between a "private-equity" fund and a mutual fund other than the selection criteria for investors and that mutual funds elect in their charter to not short stock. They should be subject to the same rules.

Einhorn is a poker player. What he wants is to have everyone else play with their hole cards exposed and not have to show his except to collect the pot.