>> here we have what I can only term a naive short getting considerable play and respect ("remember this is the guy") and no sensible skepticism in TSC.<<
Peter, you've put this very charitably, but I read this more darkly: it looks to me like Greenberg and TSC really want to throw in their lot with the short-sellers, whether just because they're good copy or for other reasons I can't say. And it's kind of you to call the short just "naïve" - I suspect he's knows what he's doing when he badmouths the stock (to his short term benefit - long term he's toast if he stays short, IMO).
While we're archiving Greenberg's/TSC's intellectual dishonesty:
Here is the link to Greenberg's blast today re SEPR, quoted by Peter:
thestreet.com
The earlier installment of Greenberg's willingness to give this short seller a forum was discussed in a number of posts on the SI SEPR thread, starting with Peter's May 27 post #3056:
Message 9794179 and again at around post #3126.
My SEPR post # 3061 has a link to the original TSC May 26 article:
Message 9798373
I see Harold Engstrom (post #91 here) also sent Greenberg a number of e-mails in response to the earlier columns, and found that Greenberg, despite e-mails setting things straight, preferred to parrot the crude nonsense of his first column on Kimmel. That was certainly what I found in my "exchanges" with Greenberg.
Greenberg's column today, continuing to do the shorts' work for them, seems to further support the inference that Greenberg is perfectly happy to spread this garbage, even when the factual errors have been pointed out to him.
For the record, just in case it's not clear <g>, I agree with your statement that "I still think SEPR is the single best bet in biotechs, so I'm likely prejudiced here."
--RCM (Ann Arbor)
|
