https://seekingalpha.com/article/4286597-markopolos-short-re...
When GE people go on CNBC and make all kinds of carefully lawyered statements that sound like denials but aren't actually categorical denials, they're also getting paid.
The GE people get paid whether or not their statements hold up over time. Given that, I'd put more weight on Markopolos because he actually has skin in the game.
There's no reason to think Markopolos won't profit if the accusations are bogus, because he profits from the market reaction, not from the actual merits of the accusations. In fact, his experience in the past tells him that even if his accusations are true, they're unlikely to result in successful investigations, and if his accusations are untrue, he's unlikely to face consequences for it.
Also, whilst the people who go on CNBC to defend GE are paid to go on, they're paid a fixed salary, they generally aren't particularly incentivized to boost the stock price.
The strength of the market reaction is contingent upon the strength of his claims.
The Myth of the Rational Market by Justin Fox
If he shorts the stock, he has a bias. If he doesn't short the stock, different people would probably be saying "if he is so certain, why isn't he putting his own money in?".
At least the logical outcome makes sense; everyone in the financial press should be considered untrustworthy at all times on all topics.
It is my understanding that Markopolos was paid to evaluate the company, and not to deliver a particular result.
His money is in providing the results of his investigation, thus being paid when he delivers them.
There is no need to come up with convoluted conspiracy theories. Occam's razor and all, and also the fact that GE is more than capable of hiring lawyers to defend their bookkeeping.
edit: added value