Seeing A Bigger Picture, What you have been deconstructing at Wikipedia Review... Options

[Patrick Byrne]

Congratulations on the great progress you have made defrocking some high clergy of Wikipedia since I last visited.

Full disclosure: My name is Patrick Byrne. I work at Overstock.com, which for about one year has employed a former journalist named Judd Bagley to oversee the creation of our car tab and a Wiki called "Omuse," handle relations with the press, and design a new tab (in the works). Long before Judd joined our company, and as a hobby since, he was analyzing techniques employed by a small group of people to hijack social media. Using the handle "Wordbomb" he posted the results of his analysis on this site and on a site he created called "antisocialmedia.net" (for the record, he did not tell me about antisocialmedia.net before he did it, nor for some time after its creation would he confirm that it was he who was behind it). In your admirable endeavors to unscramble what is going on behind the scenes at Wikipedia, Judd/Wordbomb has done his share of work. By a strange coincidence (?), one of the people whose pefidy this community has uncloaked, Slim Virgin, turned out to be a woman from my own past, and I posted elsewhere on this site such information as I thought might be helpful to you (which Mr. Brandt seemed to appreciate). I say this all in full disclosure because the financial press labors to find any incompleteness in my posts on the Internet, apparently finding something unholy in my exercise of first amendment rights without availing myself of (or recognizing the need for) their services.

Now to my point: Nothing is more irritating, I know, than to have someone suggest to you that your own cause is really part of a bigger struggle. One always suspects an attempt to divert one's energies into whichever other cause that speaker favors. So I insist that I seek no diversion from your own current, noble, efforts, when I suggest to you that the threads you are pulling here lead deeply into the heart of a financial scandal that has been percolating into the headlines for six months, and may swamp any financial scandal of our lifetime.

On another message board within Overstock.com I have begun synthesizing information about that scandal, starting by creating one concise, cohesive overview post. Rather than gum up this board with information about that other financial scandal, I will give a link to that overview post: HOW THE SYSTEM REALLY WORKS: INTRO

After you have read that you will wonder if there is independent confirmation of what I wrote there. There is a great deal, and organizing it will be the subject of my subsequent posts. In the meantime, however, consider taking 25 minutes to watch a Bloomberg Special Report, "Phantom Shares". Bloomberg has the most "elite" viewership of any news organization in the world (which may count against it in the eyes of some radicals, I know). Consider what it means when a news service at the pinnacle of the Establishment reports that our capitalist model is powered by a reactor that almost no one has heard of, and that this reactor that has a crack in it (and why it is that only such an elite news service could run that story).

Given my earlier involvement on the Slim Virgin issue, I hope that Daniel Brandt and you will forgive what may seem like a commercial interruption. I simply wish you to understand how what your are confronting here really is part of a larger puzzle, so that you may know the stakes riding on your efforts.

Warm regards,
Patrick M. Byrne
CEO, Overstock.com

[Unrepentant Vandal]

I just don't know how to respond here.

On the one hand, I've performed naked short selling myself, although never with Overstock, or in fact anything listed on a US exchange of any kind. I cannot see some markets functioning with sufficent liquidity without it.

But on the other, I think that the campaign against you by Gary Weiss et al seems to be irrationally vindictive. I'm at a loss to explain their obsession.

[Patrick Byrne]

"But on the other, I think that the campaign against you by Gary Weiss et al seems to be irrationally vindictive. I'm at a loss to explain their obsession."

Vandal,

I can explain it. They are part of a cover-up. The people behind it control the narrative in the mainstream financial press, but lacking that overt power within social media, they employ such figures as to hijack the discourse, as has been brilliantly deconstructed here and on antisocialmedia.net.

Patrick

[Pwok]

Sorry, CEO Byrne, but when I clicked on the Bloomberg link all I got was a screenful of symbols.

As for the other issue you raise, I'm not sure what it is. The post you link to doesn't say what it is. Why be so coy? A post earlier in this thread seems to suggest that you're railing against short-sellers. Please don't tell me that this is your beef. I know my way around the track, and if that's your beef then you're just another corporate dweeb who thinks his stock should be higher than it is.

This post has been edited by Pwok:

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Sorry, CEO Byrne, but when I clicked on the Bloomberg link all I got was a screenful of symbols.

Try right-click + save target as / download link / save link as, or similar. Basically the server isn't getting the MIME type right.

Or open that URL with Windows Media Player.

They are part of a cover-up. The people behind it control the narrative in the mainstream financial press, but lacking that overt power within social media, they employ such figures as to hijack the discourse, as has been brilliantly deconstructed here and on antisocialmedia.net.

I'd be the first person to admit that there's a lot of, er, sharp business practice in the city... but the size that such a cover up would have to be strikes me as a bit implausible.

But there does have to be some sort of explanation for their behaviour. Perhaps they just don't like being challenged?

[Pwok]

Let me add: I don't trade in the market. When I was involved in the market, I wasn't a short-seller. But I did respect them, because they were often the only people who'd tell me the truth about anything. I had a ringside seat at the dot.com frauds. My humble opinion is that CEOs and CFOs who simply made up their numbers to drive stocks higher were (and still are) a hell of a lot more of a menace to the economic system than all the short-sellers combined.

[Patrick Byrne]

Pwok,

Funny, the Bloomberg link works for me. Here it is in clear text.

http://cdn.overstock.com/07-0313Bloom_PhantomShares_NSS.wmv

As far as my post goes (http://forums.auctions.overstock.com/viewtopic.php?t=17929&sid=d02598415d8d5a6eb019dd77f21674dc ) it doesn't mention "Overstock" so perhaps you should not just jump to conclusions so blindly. Watch the Bloomberg piece: it should clear up for you why I (or anyone) would find this a troubling issue.

Patrick

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Let me add: I don't trade in the market. When I was involved in the market, I wasn't a short-seller. But I did respect them, because they were often the only people who'd tell me the truth about anything. I had a ringside seat at the dot.com frauds. My humble opinion is that CEOs and CFOs who simply made up their numbers to drive stocks higher were (and still are) a hell of a lot more of a menace to the economic system than all the short-sellers combined.

I'm on something of a sabbatical at the moment, but when I am trading I will easily go short or long on a hundreds lots to gain one tick, and repeat this up to a hundred times* a day. I don't trade stocks, but most players on derivative exchanges are not hedging: they're acting for themselves, for a trading house, or for an ibank. There isn't the time for a grand conspiracy, and it wouldn't really make sense for there to be one. It wouldn't serve any purpose!

[footnote]*Ok, that's fairly atypical![/footnote]

[Nathan]

A warm (re)welcome to Wikipedia Review.

[dtobias]

Pwok,

Funny, the Bloomberg link works for me. Here it is in clear text.

http://cdn.overstock.com/07-0313Bloom_PhantomShares_NSS.wmv

Your server is sending that document with the MIME type "text/plain", instead of the appropriate type for WMV content. This causes standards-compliant browsers (e.g., Firefox) to attempt to display the document as a text file, which is what the HTTP standards say they must do. I'd think that somebody in charge of a tech company would be familiar with this sort of thing.

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Pwok,

Funny, the Bloomberg link works for me. Here it is in clear text.

http://cdn.overstock.com/07-0313Bloom_PhantomShares_NSS.wmv

Your server is sending that document with the MIME type "text/plain", instead of the appropriate type for WMV content. This causes standards-compliant browsers (e.g., Firefox) to attempt to display the document as a text file, which is what the HTTP standards say they must do. I'd think that somebody in charge of a tech company would be familiar with this sort of thing.

Oi, I said that first!

You mensa members are so slow (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Pwok]

Here's a snippet of what I get when I click the link:

0&²uŽfϦÙ

I've been doing a little research on Overstock.com and your activities, Mr. Byrne. Before I say more, I want to write that prior to 15 minutes ago, all I've known about Overstock.com is that they run ads on TV. That's it, period. Seems like some sort of on-line merchant of closeout stuff. What I've learned in 15 minutes is that your company's results stink, that you're mad at the short-sellers, and that the SEC is taking a look at your accounting.

Look, your company had $93 million in cash as of the end of June. Of course, that's $30 million less than it had at the end of last year, so if I were in your shoes I'd be a little nervous. More than a little nervous, actually. But you and I both know that the way to squeeze the shorts, as they say on the Street, is to prove 'em wrong by putting up good numbers.

When I was close to the markets, a triple red flag was always a CEO who ranted and raved about short sellers. You see, when I ran money we were entirely long stocks. When I encountered a CEO ranting in public about the shorts, the first thing I'd do is sell the stock (carefully, because we ran a lot of dough and had big positions). I suggest that you tend to your business and let the stock market take care of itself. This isn't to say that I disagree about rampant corruption in the financial markets, but I'm not going to be rushing to the barricades on behalf of the CEO of a Salt Lake City-based merchant that is bleeding cash like a stuck pig.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire state of Utah ranks #50 in business ethics. I've never met such a concentration of smarmy, oily liars anywhere on earth than in your state. After having been screwed three or four times by Utah companies, I imposed an across-the-board ban on owning securities issued by Utah-based companies. Colorado, Arizona, Florida, and Northern California were bad enough, but Utah was the absolute belly of the beast. It was just remarkable. I still remember the time a business friend told me they acquired a subsidiary in Salt Lake. I said, "Whoa! Watch your wallets, guys!" Six months later he calls me and thanks me for the advice; he'd watched carefully, caught 'em stealing, and shut it down.

Funny thing about cash flow statements is that those are a whole lot harder to fake than everything else. There are all kinds of things companies can do to their income statements and balance sheets to hide the bad news. Cash flows are hard to screw around with, and cash on hand is just about impossible to phony up. "Follow the dead presidents," we'd say.

p.s.: In my experience, the shit's really got to be flying for the SEC to get involved in a company's accounting. I never once during my involvement in the markets saw a situation like that end in anything other than a loud sound and a smear on the highway where the company used to be. I even played a key role in sending a CEO and his management team to prison when they falsified the numbers. I was the guy who made the quiet, anonymous call to the SEC's Enforcement Divison and suggested that they might want to have a look at Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z. But who knows, maybe Overstock.com will break the mold. Good luck.

This post has been edited by Pwok:

[Patrick Byrne]

Sorry, CEO Byrne, but when I clicked on the Bloomberg link all I got was a screenful of symbols.

I'd be the first person to admit that there's a lot of, er, sharp business practice in the city... but the size that such a cover up would have to be strikes me as a bit implausible.

But there does have to be some sort of explanation for their behaviour. Perhaps they just don't like being challenged?

Vandal,

I thoroughly agree it is wildly implausible upon first encounter. All I can do is draw the dots, then leave it to the general reader to decide what picture they form.

As for the financial media at large: yes, no doubt psychological facts have some bearing on the question. However, there is a small group the homogeneity of whose work strays far beyond the limits of coincidence: their stories are marketing literature for the points of view of a tiny coterie of hedge funds, over and over with great regularity and, in some cases, without a single exception. In the case of Gary it goes far beyond that: at the center of the scandal (as the Bloomberg show reports) there is a huge but essentially unknown corporation called the "DTCC," a black box sitting at the heart of our entire capital market. Publicly Gary spews uncontrollably at any effort to direct attention to this corporation, and in addition, Gary has been exposed posting on Wikipedia from within that corporation's computer system. Given that it is about as heavily guarded as Fort Knox, that is no small feat nor idle fact. When confronted, the DTCC went into cover-up mode.

One can dismiss behavior with psychological descriptions for only so long. After you read what I lay out, I wonder if you will continue to do so.

Respect,

Patrick

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Sorry, CEO Byrne, but when I clicked on the Bloomberg link all I got was a screenful of symbols.

I'd be the first person to admit that there's a lot of, er, sharp business practice in the city... but the size that such a cover up would have to be strikes me as a bit implausible.

But there does have to be some sort of explanation for their behaviour. Perhaps they just don't like being challenged?

Vandal,

I thoroughly agree it is wildly implausible upon first encounter. All I can do is draw the dots, then leave it to the general reader to decide what picture they form.

As for the financial media at large: yes, no doubt psychological facts have some bearing on the question. However, there is a small group the homogeneity of whose work strays far beyond the limits of coincidence: their stories are marketing literature for the points of view of a tiny coterie of hedge funds, over and over with great regularity and, in some cases, without a single exception. In the case of Gary it goes far beyond that: at the center of the scandal (as the Bloomberg show reports) there is a huge but essentially unknown corporation called the "DTCC," a black box sitting at the heart of our entire capital market. Publicly Gary spews uncontrollably at any effort to direct attention to this corporation, and in addition, Gary has been exposed posting on Wikipedia from within that corporation's computer system. Given that it is about as heavily guarded as Fort Knox, that is no small feat nor idle fact. When confronted, the DTCC went into cover-up mode.

One can dismiss behavior with psychological descriptions for only so long. After you read what I lay out, I wonder if you will continue to do so.

Respect,

Patrick

I don't have the time to look into what you report now, but I shall do so before I contribute further to this thread. But I must correct the idea that the DTCC is unknown - even I've got at least a fairly good idea of what it does, and as I assume you've met many traders on your campaign, you'll know that most of us are (if we're honest) astonishingly clueless outside of our areas of expertise.

This post has been edited by Unrepentant Vandal:

[Patrick Byrne]

Here's a snippet of what I get when I click the link:

0&²uŽfϦÙ

I've been doing a little research on Overstock.com and your activities, Mr. Byrne. Before I say more, I want to write that prior to 15 minutes ago, all I've known about Overstock.com is that they run ads on TV. That's it, period. Seems like some sort of on-line merchant of closeout stuff. What I've learned in 15 minutes is that your company's results stink, that you're mad at the short-sellers, and that the SEC is taking a look at your accounting.

You know, most of learn by age 15 that arguments of the form "Oh you're just saying this because you feel such-and-such" are to be avoided. I would certainly expect more critical thought from a denizen of this board, the purpose of which is to unmask the ways in which socially constructed reality is being systematically distorted. To take one simple claim as an example:

"What I've learned in 15 minutes is that ...you're mad at the short-sellers."

Please produce some evidence for this claim. Not evidence of the form, "Here is an article where they say Patrick Byrne is made at the short sellers." But an article or quote where I actually say something to that effect. If you cannot, I would respectfully suggest you consider the possibility that you are laboring under one of those "well everyone knows this-or-that" mindsets that should be checked at the door. Especially at this site. If you want to exercise such a mindset, there is a place for it called, "Wikipedia.com".



Patrick

A warm welcome to Wikipedia Review.

Thank you Nathan.

It has been a year or so, but I did visit here in the past to post what I knew about Slim Virgin.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...opics&highlite=

It is nice to be back.

Patrick

[Pwok]

Oh, please, Mr. Byrne!

You don't know me and you're not going to meet me, so you can believe this or not: You just happened to have run into someone who is completely disinterested in your company or your stock, but who has been around the block 10 or 20 thousand times. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) And from what I've been gleaning in my limited research in what's now about a half-hour, Overstock has been playing all kinds of games with its books. It stands out like the sound of a senator's wingtips tapping on the floor in the bathroom stall next to me in the airport. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

What's this "pro-forma EDITDA" crapola I read about in your Q2 conference call? Do you actually think that you can get away with that sort of thing these days? That people will believe it? Hubris knows no bounds, does it? What, and you're claiming an improvement of gross margin without disclosing how much of it came from sales of stuff that you'd written down in prior quarters? What a bunch of smarmy, sleazy crap. I just hated it when managements would pull that kind of shit on me. It wasn't just dishonest, it was insulting. They actually thought we wouldn't see it.

Oh, and don't tell me about GAAP. I know all about GAAP. I still tell people about an accounting class I took in business school. So, we walk in on the first day and the professor hands us a sheet of paper with a bunch of facts printed on it. He tells us that the heat's on, and that our personal options might be riding on the quarterly numbers. He says he wants two numbers: What the company made, and what we'd report. The class average was that the company made 48 cents, and that we'd report 52 cents. "This class is all about where to find that 4 cents," the professor said.

And believe me, Mr. Byrne, I've found a lot more than 4 cents in my time. Christ, I scoped out the (first) AOL accounting fraud three years before the SEC busted them for it. If I were emporer, the AOL people and their auditors would be in jail, and guys like you would be looking over their shoulders very nervously when contemplating any sort of snake dance with their numbers. If there's one thing that white collar people fear, it's jail. Money can always be replaced, but you can't replace what you lose when you go to prison.

In the classroom example, both numbers were GAAP. You can drive a semitruck through GAAP, but apparently that's not even enough for you now. Mr. Byrne, when I look in the mirror every morning the face I see staring back at me is not that of someone who's mother raised a fool. Sheesh, how stupid do you think I am? Your game is sooooooooooo Utah. What are you thinking now, that the best defense is a good offense? Look, I don't trust Wikipedia farther than I can throw it, but my beef with them is completely unrelated to your crusade, that's for sure. You know who I really feel for? The sucker of a fund manager who bought a big slug of your stock and has to sit there at 2 in the morning and worry about it.

This post has been edited by Pwok:

[Nathan]

A warm welcome to Wikipedia Review.

Thank you Nathan.

It has been a year or so, but I did visit here in the past to post what I knew about Slim Virgin.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...opics&highlite=

It is nice to be back.

Patrick

Yup, I remember, so I'll edit my post to read "re-welcome" :-)

[LamontStormstar]

Mr Byrne, now you have an odd site. It at first looks like ebay but I can find no "about us" page and on your Wikipedia article it basically says you get your own inventory and sell it trying for low and that's that, making you like one of many discount online shopping sites, although the others are usually specialized. Then on closer digging into your site I find you have auctions with unique people selling. So people can sign up and sell and then they're competing with the main bulk of items of what you're selling and it's possible that there may be a price war and someone on the auction side may win and your site becomes more of an auction site as if the auction side can't keep up then the auctions will be basically hardly any items like it is now, just like on most online auction sites other than ebay.

Your site also has in no way tried to fix ebay's feedback system from what I've seen and I know a lot of ways on how to fix that.

As for naked short-selling, Wikipedia has the most poorly written article on with combining unclarity with generally promoting naked short selling as much as it can. The rest of the internet appears to be against it. It's also takes a lot of reading to understand how exactly it can happen, generally this long thing http://cmkxdiamond.proboards66.com/index.c...92996593&page=2 So, Unrepentent Vandal, I'm not sure how you yourself could be naked short selling. Maybe you meant regular short selling? It appears more like if I bought a bunch of shares of stock using sharebuilder.com and sharebuilder.com just claimed I have the stock and didn't buy any for me then unless the company tanks, sharebuilder.com loses money. Unrepentent Vandal, did you sell someone fake stock or just regular short sell?

Back to Mr. Byrne, now I read that your company has been naked short sold for a very long time, like someone is trying to kill it. But based on the excessive length it looks like someone tried to kill it early by naked short selling, but they failed, and then the fake shares never dematerialized.

Gary Weiss supposedly is against bad stock practices and should know better, but he take the naive idea that naked short selling is good because it can get rid of scam companies instead of causing more problems than it selfs, but then you and WordBomb say he is on a campaign against your company. So who tried to take out Overstock and why and who is still trying to take them out?

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

[Patrick Byrne]

Oh, please, Mr. Byrne!

You don't know me and you're not going to meet me, so you can believe this or not: You just happened to have run into someone who is completely disinterested in your company or your stock, but who has been around the block 10 or 20 thousand times. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) And from what I've been gleaning in my limited research in what's now about a half-hour, Overstock has been playing all kinds of games with its books. It stands out like the sound of a senator's wingtips tapping on the floor in the bathroom stall next to me in the airport. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

What's this "pro-forma EDITDA" crapola I read about in your Q2 conference call?

Pwok,

I suggest we return to the real world for a moment, and then we can revisit your fantasy world, where you have nimbly illustrated precisely the point I am trying to make to all readers.

The Bloomberg Special Report to which I linked (and which works, incidentally, in the Firefox browsers here), describes a grave crime affecting tens of millions of people in our country. The cover-up works like this. If any member of the public at large tries to discuss this crime, the Party Line response is "He must just be a shareholder who is mad that his stock went down." If a CEO tries to discuss it then it is, "He is just a CEO who is mad that his stock went down" (incidentally, our stock is up nearly 40% this year, but this does not make me right about the enormity of this financial crime against America any more than when it went down it made me wrong). These responses are given reflexively, automatically, and without hesitation; they are spewed on message boards at great length; and within Wikipedia.org are maintained as the great prophylactic against reason and evidence debate, no matter what economic data emerges.

Again, returning to the real world, I am the one who pushes GAAP as the standard and denounce all appeals to "pro forma" (Latin for, "as if") accounting, and have repeatedly made clear my aversion to "pro forma" approaches to financial statements . In addition, though essentially every analyst wants to discuss things within an EBITDA paradigm, I have repeatedly discussed my aversion to "EBITDA" instead of GAAP, saying that there are at most two conditions when EBITDA is meaningful (when cash is tight, and when large infrastructure has been completed whose depreciation will exceed ongoing capital improvements). Ourselves, we are happy to live and die by GAAP. It is simply an aspect of the Chewbacca Defense that is part of the cover-up to lie about what I say in this regrd, over and over, in the hopes that no one checks the actual record.

Now here is the transcript of the call to which you refer.

Dr. Patrick Byrne - Overstock.com, Inc. - Chairman, CEO
...Okay, slide 19. EBITDA. Now I'm going to preempt the knuckleheads who go out there and find quotes from the -- oh, Byrne has said in the past he doesn't like EBITDA. Well, yes, I have said that over and over. I have also said there's only two times EBITDA matters. And it is -- one is one when cash is real tight, which -- we were low on cash, but we have come back very nicely. And that doesn't seem to be an issue. The other it is if a company is in the odd position of having made massive capital investments that it is now seeing the depreciation expenses run through its income statement, and it doesn't have to replace that capital equipment, then EBITDA is actually an interesting thing to know.

I'd call that a stand-up explanation. Anything in it that supports the accusations you have blindly parroted?

The next piece may get a bit technical for the non-financial reader, so I broke it out:

Well, that second point really does define us. We are -- have I think about $40 million of noncash -- or $38 million of noncash a year. $35 million or so is depreciation. And so far this year we have spent, I think, about $2 million on CapEx. I bet we get through the whole year with less than $5 million. And that seems normal for now. For the foreseeable future we way overbuilt our infrastructure, so throwing back in that depreciation seems pretty good. As you can see the line -- we used to be EBITDA positive in the fourth quarter. And our goal was basically to make enough back in the fourth quarter to basically breakeven for the first three quarters in the preceding years. Everything came off the rails two years ago. We have recovered, and we are actually back EBITDA positive in the third quarter. And I don't think we have done that-" (interruption, Jason corrected me on something, I fumble to find my place) "...But anyway now that is all EBITDA excluding these restructuring costs, which is the shaded area on the screen. Like Jason just said, that shaded area is -- that should be collapsing to a line against starting this quarter.
Jason, comments on this?

Jason Lindsey - Overstock.com, Inc. - President, COO
I think it is great. I think it is nice to be generating again, I guess excluding restructuring, to be generating cash again. A big improvement."

Next comes the piece on "pro forma." An analyst I do not know came on the phone and used the term:

Quint Slattery - - Analyst
A quick question. In terms of topline growth when should we see a resumption of year-over-year topline growth? And also, when do you guys expect to be earnings positive on an EPS basis?

Dr. Patrick Byrne - Overstock.com, Inc. - Chairman, CEO
On a GAAP basis?

Quint Slattery - - Analyst
No, on a pro forma basis.

Dr. Patrick Byrne - Overstock.com, Inc. - Chairman, CEO
Well, I will take the first question, and I will said this quarter. I think that you will see topline showing year-over-year growth this quarter. Jason, why don't you take the -- on a pro forma basis, I think we can show profit now. But, Jason, what do you want to say about that?

Jason Lindsey - Overstock.com, Inc. - President, COO
We have stayed out the giving guidance realm. We have tried to tell you what we know about our business and facts, pro and con, and let you make up your own mind. If you believe in EBITDA is profitable, and you believe that the restructuring charges really are one time, or they're not recurring, and that is your definition of pro forma, then we were $2 million profitable this quarter.

Dr. Patrick Byrne - Overstock.com, Inc. - Chairman, CEO
But you're talking GAAP.

Jason Lindsey - Overstock.com, Inc. - President, COO
If you're talking GAAP, then again I don't want to tell you my opinion. I will tell you all the facts that I know of and you make your own opinion.

Dr. Patrick Byrne - Overstock.com, Inc. - Chairman, CEO
So sorry. That was a typically oracular answer from Jason. Anyway, we will -- anything else you want to ask, sir?

Quint Slattery - - Analyst
No, that's all. Thank you.

So in the real world, someone came on the phone and asked a question using the term "pro forma," and we tried to gracefully, if perplexedly, never having used the term ourselves except by way of derision (my "on a pro forma basis, I think we can show profit now" was a moment of sarcasm conveyed by the recording even better than the transcript).

Of course, the bleating continues in a predictable fashion: Sam Antar, a convicted felon who ratted out his family members to reduce his own sentence (no kidding, look it up) and who now takes his instructions from hedge funds, wrote at length pretending that I had been appealing to "pro forma" without mentioning that an analyst called in asking that question. Gary Weiss (whom Judd has unmasked so beautifully on antisocialmedia.net) chimed in quoting Sam. Now you are regurgitating it as though on command, all while professing to have no interest, etc. etc.

A few posts back you wrote something puerile: "Look, your company had $93 million in cash as of the end of June. Of course, that's $30 million less than it had at the end of last year... " - silly because retailers always end the year with their highest levels of cash (something happens every December, remember?). That is why real financial analysts look at trailing 12 months (over which, incidentally, we have had nicely positive cash flow). Given that you seem to understand how to read a financial statement, writing something so obviously silly led me to wonder if you were not just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of other readers. I fear your latest post, parroting as it does so faithfully the Party Line, does little to disabuse me of this sense.

By the way, for those who were not able to play that Bloomberg documentary, here is a lovely
article they published on the same subject: I predict that my interlocutor here will come back with whatever non sequitors he can muster to avoid discussing the issues raised in this article. Call me "Kreskin". But I have seen this movie before.

Sincerely,
Patrick

PS Before any reader gets sucked in by this guy, I strongly suggest reading Wordbomb's posts on http://antisocialmedia.net/?s=gary+weiss . This fellow uses precisely the same turns of phrase and lines of argument used by Gary and his cronies (e.g., Scipio) from on InvestorVillage. I have watched these guys for long enough to know that they were not going to let the unmasking of Slim Virgin go unanswered: they are going to try to infiltrate your site.

[gomi]

Welcome, Mr. Byrne -

I agree with you that "naked" short selling is a violation in the trust we place in the public equity markets, and I agree with you that Wikipedia has harbored at least a couple of people who have been astroturfing for the legitimacy of this illegtimate -- if not illegal -- practice. The more that can be done to expose them, the better.

That having been said, I beg to differ with your initial characterization, that what Wikipedia Review critiques (however effectively), is "part of a larger puzzle". My opinion is that it is the other way around -- the attacks on you and your company, the disinformation about naked shorting, and so on, are simply one symptom of the massive opportunity for fraud that is Wikipedia as we know it.

The scandalous biography of Mr. Brandt, for example, or that of Mr. Siegenthaler, were equally pernicious. And every day, people astroturf for Microsoft, numerous politicans and government bodies, and God knows what else.

For the record, I have both been an Overstock customer (satisfied) and also shorted its stock (to substantial profit). I do not harbor ill-will toward the company, but do believe that in general the equity markets -- including legitimate short-selling -- work well at valuing companies, though abuses such as naked shorting should be stopped. But however much you feel that what has happened to your company is the problem with Wikipedia, I assure you, the arena for potential damage is our entire society, not just Overstock.com.

In any case, welcome.