Comment by alasdair_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alasdair_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>If you're a fund manager who lies to the public about closing a highly volatile position that could bankrupt you, you are facing securities fraud and violation of fiduciary duty, respectively.

The claim that Melvin closed their position is something of a game of "telephone" in that it was a CNBC anchor that claimed that "from what I understand" Melvin Capital is out of the stock, after he talked to the CEO (off camera).

Importantly, there was no recording of the conversation, just a journalist claiming a source said something. The fact he used "from what I understand" instead of a direct quote is telling.

Melvin themselves have not (as far as I can see) issued any kind of statement, written or otherwise, that clearly states they have zero position on GME any more.

All of the other stories about the claim simply state "according to CNBC".

My point is that as far as I can see, there is no evidence that Melvin are actually out of their position, other than easily-deniable comments that a single journalist claims "from what I understand" on.

Link here to the video from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/01/27/melvin-capital-sells-o...

You are purposefully misquoting Andrew Ross Sorkin. The "from what I understand" refers to the time Melvin Capital closed their position, not the overall fact that their short interest is closed.

The full quote from Sorkin's segment, ~40 seconds into the video: "Melvin Capital is now out of the stock. They got out of the stock, from what I understand, yesterday afternoon." (https://twitter.com/cnbc/status/1354406938319216640). It could not be more clear -- "from what I understand" refers to the precise timing and not the overall fact.

> The claim that Melvin closed their position is something of a game of "telephone" in that it was a CNBC anchor that claimed that "from what I understand" Melvin Capital is out of the stock, after he talked to the CEO (off camera).

That's not a game of telephone, that's quoting a direct source. Sorkin talked to the CEO of Melvin Capital right before he went on air and then immediately reported it.

> just a journalist claiming a source said something

And it's not "some CNBC anchor," it's a well known journalist (Andrew Ross Sorkin) with a reputation at stake.

> All of the other stories about the claim simply state "according to CNBC".

Because CNBC got the scoop. It's journalistic etiquette!

> no recording of the conversation, just a journalist claiming a source said something

Every single article published in any newspaper ever is a journalist claiming a source said something.

> Melvin themselves have not (as far as I can see) issued any kind of statement, written or otherwise, that clearly states they have zero position on GME any more.

The CEO of Melvin Capital calling a prominent CNBC journalist counts as a statement, if you're willing to put aside your rabid paranoia for a few minutes and think critically instead of conspiratorially.

>That's not a game of telephone, that's quoting a direct source

No, it's not. Not at all.

A quote is where the actual words someone said are put forth verbatim. What we got was a summary of what was said and that's exactly my issue with the statement - summaries leave wiggle room for people to come back later and say "well, that's not exactly what I said".

>Every single article published in any newspaper ever is a journalist claiming a source said something.

Yes, and there are conventions to make it clear when the journalist is directly quoting a source (the use of quotation marks) and when the journalist is giving their own summary of what the source said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com