Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Hackers Turned Stock Analysts Are Targeting US, Chinese Corporations (softpedia.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A smaller group of Anonymous, called Anonymous Analytics, reached the conclusion that DDoSing is stupid and never fixes anything, so they decided to use their hacking skills and stock market knowledge to make a difference in another way. For the past years, the group has been compiling market reports on U.S. and Chinese companies and publishing their results. Their reports have been noticed by the stock market, who recently started to react to their findings. The most obvious case was of Chinese lottery machine maker REXLot. The hackers discovered that REXLot inflated its revenue and the amount of cash on its balance sheet, based on the amount of interest earned. "The group published its findings on June 24, 2015, and REXLot stock price plummeted from 0.485 Hong Kong dollar per share to 0.12, before trading was suspended [for ten months]. REXLot rejoined the market on April 18, 2016, this year, but even after submitting a 53-page report, the company stock fell again by 50 percent," reports Softpedia. Anonymous Analytics then published two more reports on the company, urging the market to sell, and two days later, Reuters reported that REXLot did not have enough cash to make due bond payments, which meant the company had to sell assets to repay bonds. Other companies on which the group published market reports include Qihoo 360 and Western Union.

111 comments

  1. all growed up now by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and following the money.

    1. Re:all growed up now by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And being more effective as a result.

    2. Re:all growed up now by sycodon · · Score: 1

      As long as they don't lie, go for it.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:all growed up now by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the inherent risk. Their ethical radars are somewhat wonky to say the least, how long before they use the tactic of releasing false information about a company they dislike simply to crash their share price or worse abuse it to make a small fortune themselves. If they stick to the truth fine, but I just don't see them not being tempted to abuse trust.

    4. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying they may become like Yelp?

    5. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yelp doesn't have the added temptation of making you an instant multi millionaire. so like yelp but on a much larger scale.

    6. Re:all growed up now by vlad30 · · Score: 0

      May have already happened Shenguan Holdings had a rise in the share price after the released report said strong buy then has continued on a downward trend Not saying they did it deliberately just that anything they say will have an effect good or bad in the short term in the long term the truth will come out regardless.

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    7. Re:all growed up now by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      . . . and they made a fortune, by shorting the companies, before they released their reports.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:all growed up now by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      how long before they use the tactic of releasing false information about a company they dislike simply to crash their share price or worse abuse it to make a small fortune themselves

      . You know, they can make a small fortune even by telling the truth. Just sell it short (or have a straw-man sell it short) before releasing the (accurate) news. Actually, I'd be astonished if they didn't...

    9. Re:all growed up now by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is this different from any other analytics group ? Anybody whose opinion can influence stock prices have the exact same incentive risks. Hell you think no politician has ever said something about a law knowing it would drive down a stock price and knowing the law was never going to be passed - just so he could buy some cheap stock and sell it at a profit later when the stock recovered from the scare ?

      Hell - you think any CEO whose company is the target of a major lawsuit and knows they are likely to lose (which he will know before anybody else since he knows if they are really guilty or not) will fail to short the stock and make more than the company is fined for ? Then buy it back at a discount after the fine. Part of why companies tend not to give a fuck about things like health and safety regulations is because actually being sued or charged with violating them have a good chance of making the CEO richer than he was before, it's only the shareholders who lose out and since they can't really prove anything...

      So they may have an incentive to start a false rumor to cash in on - so does anybody else who is in a position where large traders pay attention to what they say. It's a serious problem but it is decidedly not unique to them.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why does that matter? If you're an investor, you should do your own due diligence. You shouldn't trust someone's press releases just because they made a press release. You shouldn't buy just because they say so, you shouldn't sell just because they say so. You should work out what the truth is yourself. And if you do, you'll make money from all the idiots who buy or sell because that's what they were told.

    11. Re:all growed up now by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      The difference is if an analytics group make market predictions or announcements with the intention of taking market advantage of the reaction they will end up in a shit ton of trouble with the SEC. Same with a CEO, if he shorts a stock based on insider information he will go to jail. The SEC is not in the least bit lenient on these things

    12. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. Those who did not get caught got to grow up. Those who got caught were raped to death in prison. You know what happens to computer nerds in prison, don't you? I have heard it's not pretty.

    13. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you missed the "anonymous" part.

    14. Re: all growed up now by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      They are actually extremele lenient. Regardless of intentions thats the practical reality because insider trading is incredibly difficult to prove or even find enough evidence off to inestigate. If they appear non lenient its only because the only cases that ever happens are the most insanely egregious ones.
      Take the example I used. How do you prove the CEO knew they would lose ? If his lawyer says "nobody could predict the vagaries of a jury and he was just hedging his bets" how exactly can the SEC prove he was expecting to lose beyond a reasonable doubt. Nah you gotta be Enron or Madoff before the SEC will even try.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how the fuck do you short stocks anonymously? this is a highly scrutinised area for the exact reason to catch those that are insider trading. people get done for giving friends tipoffs or friends of friends.

    16. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CEO's have strict rules about when they are allowed to trade on the stocks of their company and it has to be declared at the time of trade. They can't go buying or selling stocks around times of announcements that have material impacts on the company. thousands get done every year for insider trading, you only hear about the big cases.

    17. Re:all growed up now by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Or how long until they make a mistake, like that time they accused the wrong guy of being the Boston bomber...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CEO's actually have a lot of laws and rules around trading in their own stock. They can't trade in them like everyone else they have to follow careful reporting rules and shorting would be an immediate alarm bell to the SEC. please provide examples of this so called leniency? The SEC has to be strict as insider trading undermines the entire system which screws everyone including many other very rich people.

    19. Re: all growed up now by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      firstly hedging isn't exactly selling short. Hedging is protecting a position of stock you actually own (completely legal), basically it is insurance. selling short is an entirely different kettle of fish. I would imagine selling short would breach all sorts of laws around financial responsibilities of a CEO and if the SEC didn't get him every shareholder would have an open and shut case for civil damages.

    20. Re: all growed up now by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Nah you gotta be Enron or Madoff before the SEC will even try.

      And sometimes not even then. The SEC was warned about Madoff repeatedly. They did nothing, even though they had strong evidence of fraud. Madoff only got prosecuted because he reached the end of his rope and confessed.

      Many people at the SEC either worked in the financial industry or hope to work in the financial industry. So aggressive prosecution isn't really on their priority list.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    21. Re: all growed up now by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      CEO's have strict rules about when they are allowed to trade on the stocks of their company and it has to be declared at the time of trade. They can't go buying or selling stocks around times of announcements that have material impacts on the company. thousands get done every year for insider trading, you only hear about the big cases.

      Did you learn nothing from the Panama Papers? There are ways around such restrictions.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    22. Re: all growed up now by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I said "hedging bets" not hedging shares. If you only short some of your stock then you can claim you shorted some in case the jury ruled against you but not all in case you they ruled in your favor. Its all but impossible to prove you are lying. Hedging a bet means betting on many possible outcomes to reduce risk. This is perfectly legal stockmarket behavior.
      The problem with enforcing insider trading is that since we lack mindreading technology its incredibly difficult to prove what somebody knew.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offshore. Buy using a company or trust registered in a full secrecy jurisdication.

    24. Re:all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the inherent risk. Their ethical radars are somewhat wonky to say the least, how long before they use the tactic of releasing false information about a company they dislike simply to crash their share price or worse abuse it to make a small fortune themselves. If they stick to the truth fine, but I just don't see them not being tempted to abuse trust.

      Well, in that case, they can go to work for Hillary Clinton.

    25. Re: all growed up now by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Madoff ran a hedge fund, not a mutual fund. Hedge funds get the least oversight because the operators and investors want it that way.

      _Every one_ of Madoff's investors knew he was a criminal, they just thought he was 'their criminal' and would ultimately take the insider trading hit for them. Had they know an investigation was ongoing, they would have worried about the loss of future earnings.

      I downloaded the Madoff chump list. You never know when a list of dishonest, greedy investors will come in handy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're already short selling the stock of the companies they report on.

    27. Re:all growed up now by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      . . . and they made a fortune, by shorting the companies, before they released their reports.

      Except not all the reports are hit pieces - they are also reporting companies as undervalued. Unfortunately, they seem to be wrong a lot. Check out, for instance, the report on Demand Media (DMD). Pretty much none of their predictions panned out. The stock price hasn't doubled, the company hasn't gone private, and it's still trading close to the same price as it was last year.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    28. Re:all growed up now by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Ok, you need to be a bit careful here. The first thing to remember is that Anonymous isn't an organization, it's a name applied to a bunch of people who don't have any connection to each other.

      You should NEVER trust anything said by Anonymous. That's like trusting something posted by "Anonymous Coward", which is the same kind of entity. But likewise you should never automatically disbelieve it.

      Secondly, even the most highly regarded analytics groups make mistakes. Sorry, but they do. So Anonymous Analytics making mistakes wouldn't be at all surprising.

      Thirdly, many traditional "analytics" groups have a long history of falsehoods. Consider Gardner. You can't prove that it was lying, because they may have believed what they said. But I consider many of them less reliable than a magic 8-ball. (That, of course, is just my opinion. I've got nothing to back it up.)

      Fourthly, read A Random Walk Down Wall Street http://www.amazon.com/Random-W... , or check out the elephant at the Chicago Zoo who used to make better than average stock predictions. There was also an ape, but I can't remember where, or whether it was a chimp or a gorilla.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re:all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this different from any other analytics group ?

      That's kind of the point. It isn't.

      The closest thing to a difference is these guys juts started so they're in the "build a reputation" phase, rather than the "turn evil and exploit" phase.

    30. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Madoff was out of the SEC's jurisdiction, SEC regulates the stock market and as such all they could do was warn that Madoff had no actual involvement in the stockmarket and hence whatever he was selling was fraudulent. It was the police that needed to prosecute him.

    31. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      offshore accounts under hidden names don't actually get you past the restrictions as you need to be an identified person to do this as the inherent risk in shorting means they need someone to chase for the money when they can't cover their position. Shorting is very different to straight stock trading.

    32. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF, hedging bets/shares it is the same fucking thing. hedging is taking a short position against some or all shares you own. completely legal. If the Short position pays off it means you lost big time on the actual shares, it means the CEO lost money not made any. It works as a bracket around your shares to control how much you can lose. It is incredibly EASY to prove what someone knew when they are the CEO as they are expected to know all pertinent market information hence the rules stating how a CEO's have to trade when trading in there own shares.

    33. Re: all growed up now by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      All the SEC COULD do was warn people. Madoff was not running a listed company, it was a private fund and he was rather smart in ensuring he wasn't actually trading on the market and hence the SEC had no authority over him. Basically he was simply running a big con, The SEC warned people it could not be legitimate as he simply wasn't engaged in the market to actually make the returns he was claiming but as it is out of the market they regulate and watch over they had no authority to do anything but warn.

    34. Re: all growed up now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't do that with shorting as markets demand named individuals as you need significant financial backing to support short positions.

  2. well the free market is supposed to function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with perfect knowledge so the free market capitalists should be happy !

    1. Re:well the free market is supposed to function by houstonbofh · · Score: 0

      This one is right here!

    2. Re:well the free market is supposed to function by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Apparently hacking is self delusion, because Goldman Sacks has yet to be outed.

    3. Re:well the free market is supposed to function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the information is true and not fudged in any way, yes.

      Would *you* trust anonymous to not fudge anything in any way?

      Most of the world wouldn't

    4. Re:well the free market is supposed to function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet your happy to trust the firms and their accountants statements - Enron springs to mind.

    5. Re:well the free market is supposed to function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends. Goldman is not one to inflate it's earnings.

      If the hackers are releasing documents about fraudulent accounting practices which causes the stock price to fall, then that's one thing. But the Goldman Sachs guys are good; they'll make money while still being within the bounds of legality. So I'm not sure this kind of thing would work on Goldman.

    6. Re:well the free market is supposed to function by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Poor A/C, Goldman Sacks makes money when stock prices rise, also. They make money when they do not disclose material facts of an investment. They make money on their HOG futures, like from you. But keep licking their bottoms, I'm certain you're not a hog to them.

    7. Re:well the free market is supposed to function by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Perfect knowledge is not a requirement for free markets, unless you ask a red who hates markets. It says more about your understanding of markets than anything else. Take econ 102 then get back to us.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. finally! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

    it's about time that bad security finally start hurting companies in a real way. maybe now you'll see executives get serious about security.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:finally! by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the IT budget will still be the first thing cut when it's time to save money

    2. Re:finally! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      it's about time that bad security finally start hurting companies in a real way.

      This is not hurting companies. It is hurting crooked managers. The company belongs to the shareholders, and transparency helps shareholders. Sure, the stock price went down, but the stock price would have fallen even more if the reckoning had been delayed.

    3. Re:finally! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > It is hurting crooked managers.

      Who often have golden parachutes already set up.

    4. Re:finally! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But managers make the decision to hire security, not shareholders.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Really? by gueryjones · · Score: 5, Informative

    CPA and former auditor here. I'd be shocked if a publicly traded company was actually able to materially misstate cash. It's one of the easiest balance sheet items to audit, and publicly traded companies are required to be audited. You literally pull the bank statements as of the end of the year. The cash is either there or it isn't. There are a few reconciling items such as deposits in transit or checks that haven't cleared, but it's typically not a lot. I haven't read Anonymous' report, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

    1. Re:Really? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

      Maybe things aren't quite so strict in China, if you know the right auditors...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:Really? by gueryjones · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just read the report, and there's no mention of cash anywhere. They do talk about revenue as the summary and articles state, but not the cash. The articles mention that the company did not have enough cash on hand to cover debt payments, but that's a different situation compared to not having the cash they claim on the balance sheet. Both could be true simultaneously, but Anonymous has not made any statement I can see regarding cash. Revenue is another story, and is much easier to misstate if your auditors are not on their toes.

    3. Re:Really? by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

      [cough] so you are saying auditors in the USA have never tweaked a companies reports to make them look good, I think someone needs a history lesson.

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff has a differing opinion.

    5. Re:Really? by plopez · · Score: 1

      I guess you've never heard of this candle. I can't imagine it is isolated:
      http://www.accounting-degree.o...

      In addition the good old CDO/CDS crash thing. And running at cash reserves at legally allowable but recklessly imprudent levels by financial institutions but finding creative ways to gloss them over.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I haven't read Anonymous' report, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

      Your comment might have meant something if you did read it first. As it is, your post doesn't pass the smell test at all. It's nothing but an attempt to discredit, in other words propaganda. Or is it typical for a CPA/auditor to comment on things they haven't seen? What, is throwing that out supposed to make us believe whatever you say at face value?

    7. Re:Really? by gueryjones · · Score: 1

      I never said it wasn't possible. I said it was unlikely.

      Cash reserves are a completely different subject. Don't conflate the two.

    8. Re:Really? by gueryjones · · Score: 2

      I didn't say that. Read more carefully and don't insert your preconceived notions. I've seen plenty and I know what happens out there. I also know what typically doesn't happen.

    9. Re:Really? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      You mean they're required to pay someone to certify their cooked books. It happens all. the. time. Companies rarely get punished for it, and auditors even rarer still.

    10. Re:Really? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Maybe things aren't quite so strict in China, if you know the right auditors...

      Auditing is often corrupt in China, but these shares were traded in Hong Kong, which has much stricter rules than the mainland.

    11. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound, American.

      Nothing personal, I'm American as well. We could argue about report validity by unknown 'masked men' all day, but the fact is, if market forces and traders believe well enough on those reports, against market reputation and stature of the company that's being reported on, it's hard say there wasn't enough doubt against them to begin with. You'd have to provide some VERY damning numbers, support, and testimony, to take down a company with a lot of clout. This was a one off 'lottery machine' company in China. That's stinks enough, before we even begin talking about it... Really!

    12. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nothing in the fine summary said anything about Balance sheet cash, only they didn't have enough to pay their (bond) debts.

      I guess I should claim to be a CPA just to get +5 without reading the summary.

    13. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely would be these guys finding hundreds of companies all selling themselves barges full of electrons.

      They found one company, in China, with fucked up accounting out of however many thousands of companies they stuck their nose in and came up clean. Your notion of unlikely loses to the massive reporting bias.

    14. Re:Really? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      CPA and former auditor here. I'd be shocked if a publicly traded company was actually able to materially misstate cash. It's one of the easiest balance sheet items to audit, and publicly traded companies are required to be audited. You literally pull the bank statements as of the end of the year. The cash is either there or it isn't. There are a few reconciling items such as deposits in transit or checks that haven't cleared, but it's typically not a lot. I haven't read Anonymous' report, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

      Does it have to?

      What matters to the market is what the market thinks others in the market will do, which often has nothing to do with reality.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    15. Re:Really? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      If you know the right auditors, things aren't quite so strict anywhere...

    16. Re:Really? by houghi · · Score: 2

      Or when the auditers are there, so is the cash. 3 hour short term loan. That way the auditer sees the money and is happy. When they come van come from higher up.

      I used to work in a hotel many years ago where we knew a day before that an unannounced inspection would take place. The one time they rally came unannounced, they asked me to bring coffee (I was a waiter) and he told me who they were.

      That gave us enough time to send home the illegals who were working in the kitchen and in the house. If we could do it with people in 5 minutes, I am sure they can do it with money as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got to be kidding me.
      Only the 10k requires audited financials, and do you know how easy it is to purchase a friendly audit opinion? Especially for a foreign company?

    18. Re:Really? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      But as a CPA and auditor, I'm sure you know just how many tricks can be used to hide losses, fake gains, and obfuscate the reports to mask it all. It wasn't that long ago that we all discovered that certain financial institutions were very good at sneaking things past the SEC and analysts/auditors. Looks like these folks may have stumbled into realizing a talent for forensic accounting through systems analysis. Take a look at their work - who knows, you might want to hire them.

    19. Re:Really? by khallow · · Score: 1

      They could have just left someone in the parking lot to look for exactly that sort of thing. That wasn't real auditing which is already something that has been stated as a problem.

    20. Re:Really? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      They probably didn't have enough cash to pay off all of their bonds. Very few companies do. Financing the company involves rolling over debt of various maturities. But if somebody is out there accusing you of misstating your financial position and your stock is in the dumps, you will have difficulty accessing to the bond market. This is somewhat of a self-fulfilling property which is part of the reason that short and distort isn't allowed.

    21. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of which bank accounts? It's trivially easy to have bank accounts no one knows about or has access to.

      If you can't figure out how to do it, you aren't thinking hard enough.

    22. Re:Really? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall a firm of auditors called something Young that materially misrepresented their clients. And got caught, but how often does that happen.

      And the point is I have no way of knowing how often that happens. And I doubt that you do either, even if as an auditor and a CPA. The people who want to hire a shady auditor won't hire someone unless they already have a pretty good idea that their ethics are flexible.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  5. The purpose of hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The activity of this 'hacking analyst' group better represents the original purpose of hackers
     
    All the DDOS and the cyber-ransom and the cyber-bullying that have been going on late do not represent the spirit of the pioneering hackers
     
    Back in the '50s, '60s and '70s, hackers were busy tweaking and exploring the innerworking of the machine to look for better, more optimize way of getting things done

    Only on the '80s hacking activities started to go 'social', and unfortunately that attracted the attention of social scums who do not understand nor care about hacking ethics

    If one wants to hack, do it so that the result can positively impact the society, rather than the reverse

  6. Travel much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... I'd be shocked if a publicly traded company was actually able to materially misstate cash ...

    I guess you haven't have any exposure to 3rd world stock markets
     
    I have the pleasure of constantly receiving IPO proposals from 3rd world companies, in which, the statements printed on the IPO proposals don't even add up!

    And yet, every single of those 'don't add up' IPO got their 'go ahead' and they are now listed in various 3rd world country stock exchanges

    Suffice to say their performance sux, and their accounting sux even more

    1. Re:Travel much? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Are you sure those are actually IPO proposals, not just phishing attacks poorly disguised as IPO proposals?

    2. Re:Travel much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Are you sure those are actually IPO proposals, not just phishing attacks poorly disguised as IPO proposals?

      Nicely printed official IPO proposals, sent to me via my investment advisors

      As I've asked --- Traveled much?

      I do investment for a living, btw

    3. Re:Travel much? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Are you sure those are actually IPO proposals, not just phishing attacks poorly disguised as IPO proposals?

      The original poster already stated his suspicion that these were genuine IPO phishing attacks. Stock scammers have been trolling for suckers centuries before electronic banking ever existed.

  7. All Strong Sells by epseps · · Score: 1

    Except for Demand Media.

    I wonder if the people who run this have money in Demand Media?

    1. Re:All Strong Sells by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      And the sausage casing people.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  8. Hey, Wall Street! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Anonymous Analytics is doing the one thing that stock analysis don't do!

    1. Re:Hey, Wall Street! by Mikeman · · Score: 1

      A lot of people make good money by investigating companies and shorting the stock. Check out Muddy Waters or Greenlight Capital, headed by David Einhorn. Einhorn even wrote a book about one particular company he shorted. Read, "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time."

    2. Re:Hey, Wall Street! by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      Einhorn is a man!?!?

    3. Re:Hey, Wall Street! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A lot of people make good money by investigating companies and shorting the stock.

      Those people do. Stock analysts who work for Wall Street don't always call a pig with lipstick for what it is, especially if their company they work for has business with that pig with lipstick.

      Einhorn even wrote a book about one particular company he shorted. Read, "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time."

      Got it on my nightstand, haven't read it yet.

  9. I think you are correct. by epseps · · Score: 1

    They might have used insider knowledge or just some good guessing on their analysis (their Western Union one makes sense to me). But, my best guess based on quick research into online companies is that I traced the probable owners of this site to a Malaysian company called "Virtus Offshore Investment Company". They ran some HYIPs a few years ago.

    It also seems to be tied to Webhosting companies Shinjiru.com and Advanced Hosting Technology both of Malaysia.

    I got a Venn diagram of this that looks like a damn spirograph doodle, but this is it in a nutshell.

    Remember, I am some guy on the internet. Don't get the torches and pitchforks out or anything.

  10. I really think they are doing what boiler room by epseps · · Score: 2

    analysts do.

    I really doubt this is a "branch" of anonymous.

    1. Re:I really think they are doing what boiler room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The boiler is typically right next to their bedroom in the basement. Maybe mom told they needed a job, other than "becoming a game deveoper" ?

    2. Re:I really think they are doing what boiler room by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I really doubt this is a "branch" of anonymous.

      I have those doubts whenever the FBI arrests someone of Middle Eastern ethnicity for being a "branch" of Al-Qaeda.

    3. Re:I really think they are doing what boiler room by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is just some people you can't identify. So these are certainly currently a branch of Anonymous. That they may not have been before they started publishing this material is irrelevant. It's not a groups with a central management and membership cards.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. better never get caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The yakuza have been employing similar tactics for decades. They wouldnt like people muscling on their turf.

    1. Re:better never get caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol yakuza? They should be more worried about becoming a problem for the wrong people in the Chinese government.

      A group of basement dwelling virgins is sort of tolerated when they limit their activities to defacing websites and camping out in parks with guy fawkes masks, but the response is going to be somewhat different if they actually cause financial harm to the 1%.

    2. Re:better never get caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really think that's who's behind this type of thing, I have a bridge in NYC I'd love to sell you. I can give you a great deal!

  12. They would have shorted the companies first by aberglas · · Score: 1

    It is a great way to make money. Find out something about a company, sort the stock, and the broadcast. Or just make something up.

    This is the one area that that supports whistle blowers. If the NSA was a company, Snowden could be rich.

    1. Re:They would have shorted the companies first by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It is a great way to make money. Find out something about a company, sort the stock, and the broadcast.

      There are organizations that do exactly that, such as Muddy Waters.

      Or just make something up.

      ... and go to prison. Making money on shorts by spreading false rumors is a serious crime. Joe Kennedy (JFK's dad) made the family fortune by doing it, but that was back before the SEC existed.

    2. Re:They would have shorted the companies first by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Joe Kennedy made the family fortune by bootlegging. He and his spawn, grow it with insider information and influence peddling.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  13. Reliability of financial reports from China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure any financial reports out of China, be the corporate or government GDP, are very believable. One of the latest has the SEC looking at Aiibaba. Is the Chinese GDB actually suffering at a growth rate of ~6% per year?

  14. these are gopvt agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these are govt agents. posing as kids..you are warned

  15. This one is, assuming reports are true and "fair" by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I'm"one guy who recognizes that free trading markets will always occur, underground or in the light of day. I'm glad to see this, assuming the reports are true and don't misrepresent the facts. (It's possible for something to be technically true, yet thoroughly misleading.)

    I'm also a career information security professional (hacker) and it's good to see people who relate to Anonymous doing something above-board and apparently quite productive, rather than causing damage.

    A belief that free markets work better than having Washington bureacrats make decisions for you does typically recognize that you are best equipped to make decisions about your own life when you have the relevant information. This information appears to be relevant to investors, so it's a good thing. (Again assuming it is true and not misleading).

  16. Re:This one is, assuming reports are true and "fai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again assuming it is true and not misleading

    The current anarchocapitalist argument (even most libertarians want the courts to stop fraud) is that this is OK because the invisible hand will have priced in the risk that the report is false (just like it priced in the risk that the company was lying about its assets in the first place, but oh well)

  17. that'll be the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The yakuza issue a complaint against these yoyos, saying they're "computer hackers" by their own admission and therefore need to be locked up. It's the law! See? All sorted.

  18. A Movie Plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous Analytics stumble upon a global conspiracy which, out of fear of exposition, is determined to silence the members at any cost. Throw in an international police organization with both noble and corrupted members, shady three letter agency agents, political drama, extremist movement and tense scenes of chase and fire fight. Add a satisfying ending, leaving the audience just a little bit unsure about the reality.

  19. Re:mod% 3own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hello markov chain!

  20. Bon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tres bon. Continuer.

  21. Interesting by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Anonymous is finally hitting corporations where it hurts: in the wallet.

  22. Yes. Really. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    I guess you didn't read that story on Slashdot from a few years ago about an HP acquisition. One of the successors as CEO to Carly Fiorina insisted that HP buy out some smaller company that had some niche product they wanted to sell. HP rushed through their due diligence process as the CEO insisted that the buyout happen immediately. A little before they got bought out, some dude, some average joe guy who was an investor, took a look at the company's reports and wrote an article saying how there was simply no way that they could possibly be making the revenue they were reporting and it was very likely fraud. Nobody paid any attention This had to be a publicly traded company because this guy got access to more numbers than you'd get for a privately held company. Then after the acquisition it quickly went south because HP realized that nothing the company claimed in terms of sales was accurate and some stock market writer found a copy of the average joe's article questioning the company's finances and it went viral. There are a lot of companies out there and yes, nobody can probably go over each and every one of them, especially the smaller ones, with a fine tooth comb.

  23. how time flies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember when it was all for the LULZ

    This will only end in tears and sadness.
    And fire if we're lucky.

  24. Short selling by dcavanaugh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Years ago, I developed a system to analyze stock option prices in real time for the purpose of automated trading. The algorithm was designed to detect overbought and oversold options, and trade ahead of the inevitable market correction.

    Although the system worked, it occasionally lost scary amounts of (simulated) money. It seems that some people traded high volumes against the market, buying into options that were already overbought, selling even when the option was oversold. It seemed as if these traders knew something that everyone else didn't. Sure enough, the company would report something surprising, and the market would move in favor of the people who traded ahead of the news.

    Ultimately, I abandoned the notition of automated options trading, but not before discovering how well the system could detect insider trading. The options market is subject to all sorts of shenanigans, but it's a pretty good advance indicator of the underlying stock. The more insider trading a company has, the better the algorithm works.

    If these Anonymous people are conducting research and detecting public reporting anomalies, the path of maximum profit is to short sell the stock, knowing that the price will fall when the truth finally emerges. Using this method, you instruct your broker to " short sell" 1000 shares of XYZ Corp. The broker "borrows" the shares from someone else's account and sells them. You get the cash and the obligation to return the shares (cover the position) at a some future time. If all goes well, you can keep the position open as long as you like, wait for the stock to fall, and then cover (buy back and return) the borrowed shares at a lower price.

    Looks like the hackers found a few cash cows. Good for them!

    1. Re:Short selling by epseps · · Score: 2

      I did something similar.

      When I would "short" a company I would write it down, and then the price it was and what I would short it at.

      I made a ton of fake money. So then I tried real time and picked a short with a call day and if I invested $100k Fake Money in the shorts and on call day I would see how much I made or how much I owed. In the first exercise with no time limit but just selling myt shorts when it hit the target I think I made something like $220k of Fake Money. When I did a more realistic experiment with a call day I owed $42k on my fake margin calls.

      In other words, Short selling is difficult, even if you know something is over-valued.

      That is why i think these guys are doing classic "Pump and Dump". Giving analysis like I would be able to give on certain stocks and saying they are crap...One hits and makes news and people look at the site and see they advised BUY on a stock or two and it drives up the price and they sell. That is what we are seeing here. I do not believe these guys are Anonymous.

      DMD is already going up in price (their only BUY)

      https://www.google.com/finance...

      Also, as I wrote above, this group is most likely tied with HYIPs in the past and two Malaysian Web Hosting companies, who would be familair with Demand Media's offerings. So this and this story is, in my opinion, a ruse to disguise Pump and Dump.

    2. Re:Short selling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of modern trading algorithms actually try and detect human patterns in markets. They factor in this kind of information to be able to gain off of human info. They are subject to 'ghost in the machine' phenomena with miss-reading, but largely at scale it ends up being a net positive for the system.

      There's some working being done to make it more of a fair game for human traders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAtD0ba-hXU&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=Ethereum

  25. They should continue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and bust the VC and startup valuation bubble. E.g. Magic Leap

  26. Tomorrow's headline by haggie · · Score: 1

    "Anonymous Members Arrested By SEC For Insider Trading In Advance Of Negative Reports"