Jack Smith wrote: > The gangsters have taken another hit ...
According to the scarce information which is available, the net out-of-pocket cash loss in these option trades, which are fully documented trades, is close to ten billion dollars from adding up all the reported loss of the two trading deadlines together. There is no indication that the two differing time periods were actually connected by a single person or group, however. The only thing that stands out as linking them is that the risk undertaken was so extraordinary as to be unthinkable in a normal economy. The net loss from the anomalous trades could be much more, since we only know about the big trades which were reported only because they were so unusual in the risk which was undertaken that no bank or even no "rogue trader" would ever even consider them as remotely possible to succeed. ... that is: many people play the options market and make large bets the wrong way on options, that is not unusual ... but without "inside" information of a major international incident (like 9/11 or a surprise attack on Iran) these were "out of the ball-park" in terms of risk and improbability. Even 9/11 would not have near enough of a financial impact on the markets (without a possible recession) to make such a improbably risk pay-off. The party or parties involved in the trades HAD TO BE convinced that war with Iran, or something on that same scale, was going to happen prior to last week. They also had to be wealthy. Many will write-off the whole incident as meaningless, or rationalize it as somehow related to Bear Stearns or Soc Gen, etc (even though neither bank was not involved, at least not by name, or even by rumor). However, the bottom line effect of it all could end-up spelling the demise of some significant ability, by anti-Western "bad guys" to do further harm, since even terrorists need to be paid. This $10 billion may be pocket change to a country like Saudi Arabia, but NOT to a terrorist organization, if for instance- the remnants of Bin Laden's group were really behind the trades. > ...and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. ...the Wiki entry on this great patriot has been updated: " On March 11, 2008, [Admiral Fallon] announced his resignation from CENTCOM [head of the Iraq war effort] and retirement from active duty, citing administrative complications caused in part by an article in Esquire Magazine, which described him as the only thing standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran." Like Jack (probably) and others, I have been pondering the significance of Cheney's visit. Given his penchant for Machiavellian plotting, it would not surprise anyone if there is/was not something of significance involving Iran which was going-on behind the scenes. But it would take something really extraordinary to justify war with Iran this close to an election. How about "Cheney's helicopter gets shot down" as a prelude to a surprise attack? Of course, he turns up later, in a few years, in the Dubai Hilton. Along with Ken Lay ;-) Jones
