Yes, a truly excellent article. One could easily come to the conclusion that the author used this thread, and the one on Yahoo, as his model when he wrote it.
Wexler's "Valence stock fraud" claims come to mind, and how many times have we seen posters trying to use the exact argument spelled out in this paragraph:
'Many concepts in the investment world are taken for granted, but these notions are easily manipulated to appear anomalous. For example, a common ploy when discussing development stage companies is to point out that the company has never reported any meaningful sales or earnings. One could argue that such comments either reflects very little experience investing in development stage companies, or that someone is attempting to turn the obvious into frightening revelations. It contributes to the na‹ve impression that one should not invest in companies, which have shown no profits. As a specialist in development stage companies, it seems fair to say I have never seen a development stage company that has produced revenues and earnings. But the negative use of the obvious creates a psychological feeling of estrangement in us--e.g. how could I be so stupid as to invest in a company with no earnings or revenues"? The distortion of common sense facts fosters a sense of enfeeblement in one's sense of self, as we feel exposed to such an "obvious" mistake.'
----------------------
Most of the Valence longs can take pride in the fact that they've (and I've) steadfastly ignored all these attempts to discourage, and have maintained, and even increased their positions. This confidence is now about to pay off.
- T -
|
