What Could Steve Cohen Possibly Have Meant When He Told CNBC “You Don’t Want To Talk To Me, I’m On The Way Down?”

Earlier today on Squawk on the Street, CNBC showed footage of Steve Cohen at Davos. “We caught up with the legendary investor at breakfast this morning,” it was teased. “He told us ‘You don’t want to talk to me, I’m on the way down.'” Now the kind of people who think a hedge fund manager would tell a cameraman the Feds are on his ass are wondering if he was hinting at something! Indeed, we’re thinking he was! Gather round, ’cause this is a huge scoop you’re not gonna wanna miss.

And that hint was: “Fuck off, CNBC. I’m having a conversation here.”

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

36 Responses to “What Could Steve Cohen Possibly Have Meant When He Told CNBC “You Don’t Want To Talk To Me, I’m On The Way Down?””

  1. Hurtfeelings says:

    One way to view the size of Mr. Paulson’s $5 billion profit: It is nearly as much as the $6.4 billion that Forbes magazine last year estimated as the total net worth of Steven Cohen, the well-known head of $12 billion hedge-fund firm SAC Capital.

  2. Rock&Rho says:

    CNBC did not stick around for the full comment. He was actually saying, “I’m on my way down to Dominos, do you want anything”.

  3. Guest says:

    and then he backhanded the reporter in the face.

  4. Peter Davis says:

    Translated: “Once I set up another sucker trade for the public, I’ll be happy to go on your network and allow you to lick my ass and tell me how wonderful I am. Until then, however, I must respectfully request that you fuck off. P.S. Have a nice day.”

  5. Kevin Bundschuh says:

    he was clearly doing drugs. uppers don’t last forever.

  6. Baba says:

    Could he actually be going down, as in downhill skiing?
    This is Davos, for Crissake!

  7. on the way down says:


    You should have accompanied Stevie to his Davos cherry pop, and maybe next year, if nothing else, your well-heeled legion of fans can finance this (count me in). I’d bet the ranch that Stevie would be delighted to talk to you, even if he was on the way down…..

    Bess Fan

  8. Cartographer says:

    Well duh? Of course he is going down. The elevation difference between Davos and Stamford is drastic. If he decends too quickly, he’ll die on impact.

    -LEH Quant

  9. Cartographer says:

    Well duh? Of course he is going down. The elevation difference between Davos and Stamford is drastic. If he decends too quickly, he’ll die on impact.

    -LEH Quant

  10. The Russian says:

    Going down as in “Book him, Dano.”

  11. Guest says:

    I thought it was an oral sex reference.

    -AIG Quant

  12. Yahia says:

    Its like you read my mind! You appear to unantsrded a lot about this, like you authored the e book in it or something. I believe that you can perform with some pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that, this is great blog. an awesome read. I will certainly be back..

  13. Tuk says:

    A colleague relctney emailed me a copy of the Lead Letter in Science magazine, May 7, 2010, entitled Climate Change and the Integrity of Science. My friend is a scientist, he is a believer in AGW, and he thought the letter was authoritative. I, on the other hand, am only a Philosophy instructor. But, I must say that every time I read that letter, I get angrier and more disgusted. With the publication of this letter (a despicable, lowly political hack job), the magazine and all the signers relinquish all claim to scientific integrity. There is not one solid thing to hold onto in this letter. This letter is full of the most foul ad hominems, it whines and plays the victim, it makes vague complaints and vague accusations (omitting any particulars, so that any reply would be impossible), begs the question by simply making bold assertion, illegitmately uses appeal to authority and appeal to concensus, whitewashes the climategate affair (calling it McCarthy-like to attack their friends, again without bothering to mention specific charges like stonewalling FOI requests). They even have their own version of Pascal’s wager, though it is a wager about the truth of AWG, not about the existence of God. Can you find it? They even smear some of my heroes like Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein, seeming to suggest that they were in it to build reputations and gain recognition. NO! These were men possessed by the quest for scientific truth and understanding. Any person who cannot see that discourse on this level has no place in scientific debate is a person who has no moral integrity. I am going to deconstruct this stupid letter line by line, and maybe you all would like to sign a copy and send a complaint to the so-called Science magazine, to the U.S academy of sciences, and maybe even one to Inhof and the Attorney General of Virginia. So,here is your assignment. If you are smart enough to know that AGW is true, are you smart enough to locate the ad hominems in the Integrity of Science letter, and are you smart enough to say why such fallacious reasoning has no place in scientific discussion? By the way, you don’t need a Ph.D. in Philosophy or a statement by the American Philosophical Association to know that ad hominem is scum-bag argumentation and that it is wrong. Cheers.[DC: The wide difference of opinion between you and your scientist colleague is a microcosm of the gulf between scientists and some portions of the general public. It also appears that you have no objection to the initiatives of Senator Inhofe and the Virginia Attorney General. You are entitled to your opinion, however ill-informed it may be. However, I must warn you in advance that your initial comment is already overly long, and it certainly would be unacceptable to post a “line-by-line” critique. So please publish it elsewhere, and if you like you can point to it here. Thanks! ]

  14. bbw2ha Enjoyed every bit of your post.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.

  15. This is one awesome blog post. Really Cool.