GV, longs shorts
what i'm trying to say is that WallStreet's justification for creating the 'short trading' category was the creation of "buyers" when the stock was dropping or at it's low. or, another often used explanation is that it creates "more" (artificial) buyers when a stock is rising.
but, regardless of their purist explanation, who receives the greatest benefit from this scenario? WallStreet created this category at the request of the institutions. who is hurt the most often? isn't it the small, individual investor?
what WallStreet effectively did by creating the short trading category was allow the bull to ride the man! the bull always wins. the "bull", the institutions, employ the analysts. the analyst is not self-employed, the analyst works for institutions.
you implied that longs lie as often as shorts to help prop up their positions. since all longs and shorts are represented by analysts, you're therefore saying the analysts lie as often as they tell the truth.
thus, using your scenario, Kumar lies as often as he tells the truth. both his lies and truth is for the purpose of assisting either his company's net long or short position.
it is irrelevant whether Kumar's truth or lies has any justification over the coming twelve months. his position is to support the bull who is riding the man.
Dell says sales are fine. Kumar says they're not. Dell says sequential growth of at least 10%. Kumar says no way. Either Kumar is a liar, Dell is a liar, they're both idiots, or Kumar is a god.
other dram suppliers and PC makers are not supporting Kumar's view at this moment; therefore Kumar is a either an idiot, he is a liar, or he is a god that can form the future. |
