If you have any remaining question...

Investment Analysis Clubs Saul’s Investing Discussions
#9

Now can you tell me the name of the person that he is referring to? I would like to investigate it if possible. But if you can not give me the name why would you believe it? It amazes me that people would believe something when no real information was given.

Hi Andy, If you look at the information that I included from the lawsuit in the first post on this thread, you should have no trouble at all in finding the name of the guy who is a convicted felon. I’m including it again below. This isn’t something made up by a silly short. It seems to be horrifyingly real!

As I said: what kind of bank knowingly hires a Senior Vice President who has been convicted of numerous crimes, including

Grand theft?
Burglary?
Fraud and forgery involving credit cards?
Dealing in stolen property?
Petit theft?

And subsequently has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy twice?

And has been a debtor in at least four actions involving judgments, and state and federal tax liens, against him?

Best,
Saul

P.S. Here’s the information about the person that you were searching (direct from the lawsuit):

205. BofI failed to disclose that an individual who served as BofI’s Senior Vice President of Wholesale/Correspondent Lending during part of the Class Period (“SVP 1”) is a convicted felon….

SVP 1 served as a Vice President of Wholesale and Correspondent Lending from early/mid-2010 through April 2013. CW 5 explained that “Correspondent Lending” referred to BofI’s Foreign Nationals Loan program. SVP 1 was promoted to Senior Vice President in May 2013 and became the head of the Foreign Nationals Loan program.

210.
A background search of SVP 1 performed on Lexis-Nexis revealed that SVP 1 has been convicted of numerous crimes, including grand theft, burglary, fraud and forgery involving credit cards, dealing in stolen property, and petit theft in Broward County, Florida in 1990. SVP 1 was sentenced and served time in a California prison.

He has also filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy twice (in October 2011 and in June 2000), and has been a debtor in at least four actions involving judgments, and state and federal tax liens against him.

211. CW 5 indicated that SVP 1 was hired by BofI despite his criminal history and background check, which included fingerprints and an FBI background scan.

1 Like
#10

NewEchota,

What surprises me in this whole affair is the amount of conviction you have in your decision. For me, successful investing has always been contingent on weighing ones chances correctly. When I look at the BOFI situation I see a couple of options:

  1. There is a legit claim in the class action suit and it will be very costly, if not ruinous for the bank
  2. The shorts have gone way beyond their usual (quick and cheap) business of setting a “sell” status or publishing a scathing “analysis”, and actually compiled a 100 page claim full of serious allegations, filed it to a court of law and lined up almost a dozen witnesses ready to perjure themselves
  3. Other possibilities like that the claim is legit but will not have bad consequences or is false but will still ruin the company etc. (an exhaustive list is not the point here)

When I read your posts, it seems you don’t even pause to consider anything else then the option 2). The only argument that I could find in your posts so far was that the reporting on the case is full of inconclusive language using words like “allegedly” or “claims”. To me this is a very weak argument as it’s the standard for articles reporting on trials. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/business/worldbusiness/18i… for example.

So where does your utter conviction come from? Are there other recent cases of the shorts doing such an extensive, risky and expensive actions just to bring the stock down that are similar to the BOFI case? Is there something else I’ve overlooked?

7 Likes
#11

Hi Saul,

Thanks for the information but doesn’t it seem strange to you that the person writing the short would not name him. In fact you had to go down into the comments in order to find who he was talking about. He kept showing people how to find the information but wouldn’t actually name the person. That just seems really strange to me because if you are writing on something, and it is the basis of your thesis, why wouldn’t you put that into words? Just seems really strange.

Also Saul, you already knew that this was supposedly a problem with BOFI when you placed a new position. So wouldn’t that mean you had discounted this problem and really didn’t believe it? Otherwise if you still believed this was a problem, why get back in? Now the new report of almost 12 more employees coming forward seems to be more compelling.

Thanks for the discussion Saul.

Andy

#12

Thanks for the information but doesn’t it seem strange to you that the person writing the short would not name him.

It shows good sense to me as he was trying to avoid the possibility of being sued. The same with all the “alleged” references. All the accusations are “alleged” until they are proven in court.

Contrary to what the deniers are saying, because an accusation is “alleged” doesn’t mean that it’s false or made up. Just that the accuser is following what his lawyer told him and covering his ass. And just because he says he’s “short” doesn’t mean it’s false either, any more than someone on this board writing positive things about a company, but saying he’s “long” the stock, means he’s lying.

Also Saul, you already knew that this was supposedly a problem with BOFI when you placed a new position.

Early on it was a rumor which may have been correct. Now with the lawsuit documenting it, it seems to be an established fact that Bofi did indeed hire a Senior VP with that amazing record of convictions. That’s a bit different. Especially since we know that they also hired a head internal auditor straight from the failing, scandal-ridden bank that he had been supposed to be protecting as head auditor there.

Best,

Saul

2 Likes
#13

doesn’t it seem strange to you that the person writing the short would not name him.

No sense in opening yourself up to a libel suit. These short attack writers have to be very careful what they write. But he could have linked to a government document that substantiates the accusation (or innuendo).

Denny Schlesinger

#14

stenlis: NewEchota,

What surprises me in this whole affair is the amount of conviction you have in your decision. For me, successful investing has always been contingent on weighing ones chances correctly.

stenlis… Since you addressed me personally, let me explain.

First, I do not have a “conviction” as you suggest and do not believe I have even once encouraged anyone to add to or hold BofI. Instead, I have joined Saul to encourage anyone to sell if s/he is made nervous by an investment in BofI (or by any investment, for that matter). I agree with you that “successful investing has always been contingent on weighing ones chances correctly.”

Rather, the arguments I make are arguments against the “reporting” style of Seeking Alpha and are the same arguments I would make with respect to any equity attacked by “ifs and buts” quasi-journalism. Perhaps I have not been clear enough that the intention of my posts is not to rally the troops to defend BofI but to point out that Seeking Alpha is not a reliable source for honest information.

Again, here is all you need to know about the journalistic integrity of Seeking Alpha (quoting from the disclaimers that appear with every article published on its website):

“This article is based upon information reasonably available to the author and obtained from sources the author believes to be reliable; however, such information and sources cannot be guaranteed as to their accuracy or completeness. The author makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information set forth in this article and undertakes no duty to update its contents.”

I only stepped into these discussions when a laundry list of old allegations was posted as if new revelations had suddenly come to light within the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System complaint. There is very little new information in the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System complaint; primarily, that other former employees during the interview process have offered tales of loans to a Salvadoran gambling gang, a Venezuelan trust, and some former employees have said that one appraiser made too many appraisals.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System complaint cites Seeking Alpha and Aurelius 35 times and the foundation of its complaint is primarily built on Seeking Alpha articles, a publisher which, again, refuses to assure the accuracy or completeness of its reporting.

And perhaps a little review is in order with respect to the original Matthew Erhart complaint: Erhart brought his information to the SEC before filing his personal lawsuit and regulators evidently did not grant merit to his allegations (which is why he filed his personal complaint).

So, to make a long story short (no pun intended), my comments are almost entirely about relying on the veracity of Seeking Alpha, a publisher that makes no claims to be accurate, honest, or to provide complete, factually-based information.

I hope this helps and, again, please sell any equity that causes you concern. If my posts have made you believe that I am leading the call to buy BofI, I am not; rather, I am asking that you question allegations made by Aurelius and The Friendly Bear at Seeking Alpha. These writers, as they repeatedly state in their disclaimers, are short BofI; simply put, their objective is to drive down the price of the equity.

39 Likes
#15

Concise and well said NewEchota!

JT

2 Likes
#16

Hi Saul,

Early on it was a rumor which may have been correct. Now with the lawsuit documenting it, it seems to be an established fact that Bofi did indeed hire a Senior VP with that amazing record of convictions. That’s a bit different. Especially since we know that they also hired a head internal auditor straight from the failing, scandal-ridden bank that he had been supposed to be protecting as head auditor there.

Thanks Saul that makes it clear.

Andy

1 Like
#17

I am asking that you question allegations made by Aurelius and The Friendly Bear at Seeking Alpha. These writers, as they repeatedly state in their disclaimers, are short BofI; simply put, their objective is to drive down the price of the equity.

New Echota
By this reasoning you shouldn’t believe “allegations” made by Kevin and DataBaseBob about Infinera as they both indicate that they are giving information that is just the best of their knowledge, they both indicate they are long Infinera, and thus, by your reasoning, simply put, their objective is to drive up the price of the equity.

Saul

2 Likes
#18

New Echota
By this reasoning you shouldn’t believe “allegations” made by Kevin and DataBaseBob about Infinera as they both indicate that they are giving information that is just the best of their knowledge, they both indicate they are long Infinera, and thus, by your reasoning, simply put, their objective is to drive up the price of the equity.

I really don’t think you can equate the motives (or the content)of posters on the MF message boards and those of Seeking Alpha short sellers, but that’s just my humble opinion!

Alex

4 Likes
#19

I really don’t think you can equate the motives (or the content)of posters on the MF message boards and those of Seeking Alpha short sellers, but that’s just my humble opinion!

Hi Alex
I wasn’t equating the motives. I was just pointing out that you can’t assume something is false because it’s been presented to you by someone who is short the stock, any more than you can be sure something is correct because it was presented to you by someone who is long the stock.

I feel there’s too much of “I can just ignore that information because it was presented by someone who is short”. But that’s just my opinion.

Saul

3 Likes
#20

SaulR80683:
New Echota
By this reasoning you shouldn’t believe “allegations” made by Kevin and DataBaseBob about Infinera as they both indicate that they are giving information that is just the best of their knowledge, they both indicate they are long Infinera, and thus, by your reasoning, simply put, their objective is to drive up the price of the equity.

Saul… here is why it’s different. Kevin is posting to a discussion board; he is not writing articles under the guise of journalism that are pulled through a financial engine “news” feed on financial websites like MarketWatch.

Click this link http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/bofi and scroll down the page to the heading “Other News on BOFI” and you’ll see a list, including these “news” items:

BofI tumbles following SA article
10:42 a.m. April 14, 2016 - Seeking Alpha

The Walls Are Closing In On The Branchless Bank
6:51 a.m. April 14, 2016 - Seeking Alpha

Now if I went to MarketWatch’s “Other News on INFN” and found discussion board comments made by Kevin, you can bet that I would be taking a close look at what he wrote with respect to its accuracy.

What you’re suggesting is that some posters making discussion board comments about the Seeking Alpha articles are being pulled through the MarketWatch news section as news; that is not the case.

BTW, have you noticed that Seeking Alpha is removing (censoring) comments that are critical of/correcting some of the allegations in the latest article, “The Walls Are Closing In On The Branchless Bank”? I guess that’s not really a surprise considering the fact that Seeking Alpha is paying The Friendly Bear (and others) to write (an ongoing series of) short position articles:

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha).

19 Likes
#21

the fact that Seeking Alpha is paying The Friendly Bear (and others) to write (an ongoing series of) short position articles:

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha).

While I generally agree with NewEchota in this thread (questioning the reliability of articles on Seeking Alpha), the above seems misleading to me. The above quote sounds to me like Seeking Alpha is responsible for launching a coordinated short attack on BofI. It is my understanding that Seeking Alpha pays all of its authors based on the number of hits their articles get. I question the reliability and newsworthiness of various authors on Seeking Alpha. But that’s different from implicating Seeking Alpha (the web site, and its staff) itself.

By the way, The Motley Fool has a similar problem. They also let non-employees post articles without any involvement from TMF itself. I haven’t looked into whether these authors get any kind of payment from TMF. I think TMF does a disservice to its members by not making those externally authored articles clearly and easily distinguished from internally authored ones. I’m sure it benefits TMF that these articles get aggregated and referenced by other news services like MarketWatch.

have you noticed that Seeking Alpha is removing (censoring) comments that are critical of/correcting some of the allegations

I quickly scrolled through the comments, and couldn’t find a quick and easy way to detect removed comments. (I did not read through all of the comments, to see whether they refer to missing comments.)

Again, the quote above sounds like Seeking Alpha itself is deciding which comments to remove. I notice that each comment has a “Report Abuse” link. Could it be that the BofI bears are reporting such comments as “abuse”, and Seeking Alpha is merely removing all such flagged comments? (I haven’t looked into whether Seeking Alpha has a process to arbitrate this process, and prevent people from using “Report Abuse” to actually cause abuse.)

I’m still long BOFI because the issue still seems too murky and unsubstantiated to justify selling a stock whose company has had a long history of good growth. At this point, I’d rather wait for better proof or disproof, not just more allegations. I’m hoping the shorts will get tired of bashing on BOFI and move on to another target, and that the company continues to perform well, and that the stock price will adjust to reflect the company performance instead of the allegations.

-Mark

#22

SA is in the business of collecting eyeballs. If short attacks bring eyeballs, they are interested in publishing them. That does not mean that SA agrees with the article, they just publish it with little or no editorial intervention. The responsibility for the article remains with the author. No matter how much I dislike some of these short attacks censorship would be even worse. SO, get used to the real world!

Denny Schlesinger

4 Likes
#23

Dredging up old allegations from Seeking Alpha is not helpful because while I respect you completely, I have no respect at all for the inflammatory and often false “reporting” done by Seeking Alpha and feel it’s necessary to at least expose its methods as highly suspect, point out that many of its allegations are based on hearsay evidence and that its conclusions are often unsupported by facts or merit… never once corroborated by a single industry expert or analyst. Seeking Alpha is not journalism, it’s pure opinion and always includes a ton of disclosures, which when you read them say, more or less, “What was written may or may not be accurate but since it’s just my opinion no one can sue me”…

That may or may not be so, but goodness, methinks thou doth protest too much!

The posts of the BOFI defenders in these threads sound very defensive and angry, IMHO. It sounds as if they are taking this news personally. All this accusing “the media” of “blowing this out of all proportion” reminds of the Nixon administration. “I am not a crook.”

Peace! Buy BOFI, don’t buy it, hold it or sell it; we all agree we should follow our own judgment. The business fundamentals haven’t changed (to my knowledge). The fact in this matter that matters is that BOFI is being sued for actions that greatly increase its risk for the foreseeable future. (As if there was such a thing!)

With all the other good growth stocks out there, why would I place my money with BOFI? Who needs the headache?

Good hunting!
Jackson

3 Likes
#24

Hi Jackson,

The posts of the BOFI defenders in these threads sound very defensive and angry, IMHO. It sounds as if they are taking this news personally. All this accusing “the media” of “blowing this out of all proportion” reminds of the Nixon administration. “I am not a crook.”

Nobody is angry or defensive. This is what we do on this board. We let posters discuss ideas and vigorously defend their views but nobody gets angry. You might not be used to it but if you hang out here for awhile you will come to see that their is a lot of respect for all posters on this board.

Have a great day.
Andy

3 Likes
#25

mday1: It is my understanding that Seeking Alpha pays all of its authors based on the number of hits their articles get. I question the reliability and newsworthiness of various authors on Seeking Alpha. But that’s different from implicating Seeking Alpha (the web site, and its staff) itself.

mday1, Seeking Alpha has editorial approval of all content of all published articles. According to Seeking Alpha’s CEO, Editor-in-Chief Eli Hoffmann:

We score submissions (internally) on three characteristics: a) Convincing: What’s the author’s thesis? Does he do a good job of convincing the reader? b) Actionable: Is the article material to investors in an obvious way? c) Well-presented: readers want content that is clear, focused, and easily understandable.

Funny, but not a single one of the five principles of journalism is mentioned: Truth and Accuracy, Independence, Fairness and Impartiality, Humanity or Accountability. Well, maybe not so funny… as I have written before, Seeking Alpha articles only appear to be journalism.

And Seeking Alpha pays contributors in two ways: base payment is $10/CPM (1,000 page-views); an additional payment is made for ideas with exceptionally attractive risk/reward profiles.

mday1: Could it be that the BofI bears are reporting such comments as “abuse”, and Seeking Alpha is merely removing all such flagged comments?

Sure, I suppose it’s possible; though the majority of posts that seem to be deleted are those critical of the articles or those pointing out deficiencies of the writer’s assertions… some for rudeness.

However, isn’t it a little odd that Seeking Alpha cares more about the accuracy and tone of discussion board comments than it does about the accuracy and tone of the articles it publishes?

http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/en/contents/5-principles…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2134803-how-much-does-seekin…

24 Likes
#26

Hi NewEchota!

I read a lot of Seeking Alpha articles, and sometimes post their links here on TMF.

That being said, I view SA articles about the same as posts on the TMF boards (not official TMF recommendation articles); specifically, there are “good” and “bad” posters on our TMF boards, just as there are good and bad writers of SA articles.

One must decide which voices to listen to on SA, just as one makes the same choices here at TMF.

For my money, I don’t mind wading through some “chaff” to get to the “wheat”…here or at SA.

Just my $.02.

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

6 Likes
#27

TMFMurph: That being said, I view SA articles about the same as posts on the TMF boards (not official TMF recommendation articles)…

TMFMurph, in that case, aren’t you making an apples and oranges comparison?

Isn’t the better comparison between TMF recommendation articles and the Seeking Alpha “news” articles… or between the discussion board posts on TMF and the comments section on Seeking Alpha.

Perhaps I am mistaken but what you seem to be saying is that you give equal weight to an article written in Fortune magazine as you do to the discussion sections of articles in Fortune magazine.

5 Likes
#28

Sorry, NE, but I don’t see it that way.

I simply offered my perspective on the issue; a perspective that has worked well for me.

Your mileage may vary. :wink:

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

2 Likes