Complicated subject.

Briefly, if you're familiar with a field, you can (generally) tell if an argument is at least trying to engage with the field, or if it exists in some disconnected parallel universe. This happens a lot more than you might think. It's a real issue in physics (see, eg, https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/cranks-and-phy... or https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-...), but it pops up everywhere.

I believe I am familiar enough with this area to say this is the work of a crank. Some key problems:

1. There's a huge body of scholarship out there about markets, how they work, how to think about them, how they may fail, how you can measure how they're failing, etc. This doesn't engage with any of that. It's not "Prof X said Y is true, but my data suggests he was wrong, see table 2", it's just "everything you think you know about Y is wrong".

2. Also, the paper is making up its own terms. That's actually a pretty good rule: Any paper that tries to discuss a topic and starts with a bunch of idiosyncratic definitions of basic terms is a huge red flag, because anyone in the field knows what those words mean already. So again, you're clearly not writing for an audience of people who could critique your argument. But if you're not looking for a critique, why are you writing at all? How can you know you're right unless the top experts in the field have tried to tear you apart and failed? Which they won't do if you don't engage with them.

3. There's no data anywhere, just assertions which (again, as someone a bit familiar with the field) seem wildly implausible. Eg:

> At any given point in time more than 100 emerging companies are under attack as described above. [...] The success rate for short attacks is over ninety percent—a success being defined as putting the company into bankruptcy or driving the stock price to pennies. It is estimated that 1000 small companies have been put out of business by the shorts.

So more than 100 companies are being attacked every moment of the day. There's no real definition of what an attack might be, or how you might count this, nor is there any evidence given of where the author came up with this number, or how long an attack lasts, or a list of companies under attack at the time of writing. Then we're told that these attacks succeed 90%(!) of the time, bankrupting the company(!). Again, no information why we might think such attacks succeed at all, much less 90% of the time, nor any acknowledgement of the huge body of research suggesting shorting does no such thing. Then we say "it is estimated" (by whom? when?) that 1000 companies have been so bankrupted. ...if 100+ companies are being attacked, and this has been going on for many years, and the success rate is 90%, and the result is bankruptcy, how come only 1000 companies have been bankrupted? Also, again, how come we can't seem to name any of these companies?

Also, I elided a passage of the quote above, which is:

> This is not to be confused with the day–to—day shorting that occurs in virtually every stock, which is purportedly about thirty percent of the daily volume.

That probably sounds pretty wild too. But actually, last I heard, the actual number was more like 49%, because that's how stock markets work. You ask your broker to buy 100 shares of Apple, and he'll sell you 100 shares (short), then go buy the rest on the market. As a general rule, whenever you buy shares it shows up as a short order, and whenever you sell shares it shows up as a long order. Since any time someone buys someone else is selling, about half the order volume is short orders. Simple.

But consider: The author got the number wrong (it's ~50%, not ~30%), which is a bit embarrassing. Worse, it's a number which exists. "Purportedly about thirty percent"? You don't need to use anonymous rumours. Why not "according to the SEC it's 49%"? (Some slightly old numbers here: https://www.sec.gov/files/short-sale-position-and-transactio..., I believe newer ones are reported regularly, although I'm not quite sure where to look, because I'm not an expert on finance writing about fundamental market structure questions. But I do know the numbers exist, and anyone qualified to write the paper the author is wring would have them at the tips of their fingertips. And of course, the bigger issue is that number has nothing to do with what he's actually talking about. Unless of course he's talking about some other number entirely, but how would we know, because he doesn't actually explain it or cite it!

That's a lot of errors to pack into such a short passage! And then consider his rant about the grandfather clause (linked from the main article, or available here: http://counterfeitingstock.com/CS2.0/CS1TheGrandfatherClause...) Read what's being said carefully; I would paraphrase it as: "The initial regulation grandfathered a group of transactions. Authorities claimed the size of this group was small, but I (and unnamed others) believed they were wrong. This exception was later closed; if I was correct and it covered a large number of transactions, this would have had a large impact, but it actually had a very small impact, in line with what the SEC had stated all long. Since the data suggests I was wrong, this proves the conspiracy goes much deeper than I had realised!" This is not falsifiable; if reality agrees with his predictions it means he's right, if it disagrees with his predictions it means he was even more right. If everything that happens or does not happen proves the SEC is lying then....what now?

And so forth. Note that nothing says this guy (or any other "crank") is wrong; by chance if nothing else they'll occasionally be right! The problem is that science, finance, economics, software engineering, etc. are all disciplines that require many people to work together, building on the work of those that came before. If you come up with your own arguments using your own terminology and your own data, nobody will ever understand what you're trying to say, nobody will ever engage with or vet your arguments, nobody will ever have any reason to trust your arguments, etc.