We were not planning on writing any additional posts on the 9/11 options story. Our prior posts are here and here. However given the continued back and forth on the topic we feel compelled to continue writing.
Eddy Elfenbein at Crossing Wall Street continues to believe that the 9/11 angle the WSJ used was “unfair journalism.”
Daniel Gross takes to task another writer for “pooh poohing” the options backdating scandal.
Bill Sjostrom at Truth on the Market points to an ISS white paper that is both an overview of the topic and provides corporate boards with recommendations on “best practices for option grants.”
Larry Ribstein at Ideoblog rejects the call to invest in the stocks of the offending firms and believes SarBox has already eliminated the potential for further backdating.
Stephen Bainbridge at ProfessorBainbridge.com not only disagrees with the Ritholtz proposal, but turns to name calling by hurling the epithet “technical analyst” at Barry.
Joe Weisenthal at DealBreaker.com knows a good story when he see it, and is hoping for some more back and forth.
In closing we will point you to the Barry Ritholtz response to Bainbridge. Barry explains his analytical process and highlights the success of a great number of so-called technicians.
The larger topic of the validity of technical analysis, and where it stands in the market today, is an interesting one. We plan on quickly revisiting the topic.