(07-29-2024, 01:24 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(07-29-2024, 01:17 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: The connection there is James Baker, old as he is now, being associated with Austin Private Wealth.  From the little bit of their history that I ran across, James had advised Trump to return to the political center in a previous Presidential campaign, but Trump ignored him.  Baker also apparently considered voting for Biden in 2020, but ultimately did not citing the need for the party to control the executive branch so that conservative judges could be appointed among other things.  He was quoted as saying he would not leave his party even if its current leader had strayed from party principles.

It's enough of a coincidence that should give anyone pause even with the explanation after the fact.  I find it difficult to believe that Baker or Austin Private Wealth would draw attention to themselves in such a way.  If Baker knew of a government plot against Trump, why on earth would he so publicly try to profit from it knowing the connection would be easy to make.  I also find it very odd that of all the Advisory firms out there that could make this filing "mistake", it's the one that has a former government official such as Baker associated with it.   What are the odds?

No one tried to profit from it.  That "massive short" never existed.  What people saw was an error on a regulatory filing.  Like a typo.  If they had actually owned that large of a short position, they would be sitting on massive losses when DJT went up instead of down.  

This little conspiracy theory needs to go away, because there's nothing there.  It's been thoroughly debunked.

Well APW did take a short position, just apparently not as large as was originally filed (1,200 vs 12,000,000).  1,200 shares going down from $30 per share to hypothetically $0 would have meant the staggering profit of $36,000 or thereabouts.  The stock has come back down to pre-assassination levels, so anyone holding short positions and having the fortitude (and the cash) to hang on would be around even right now.  Anyway, I'm agreeing with you for the most part.  However, don't you find it the slightest bit of an odd coincidence that a former government official as renowned as Baker who had previously made what could only be interpreted as a negative comment about Trump happened to be associated with this perfectly timed error?  I would venture a guess that of all the wealth advisory firms out there that the percentage of them that have a former government official as prominent and connected as Baker on the payroll or as an equity partner would be less than 1% and probably significantly so.  It's an odd coincidence, you have to admit that.

---