Ed, shorters don't bust honest companies
They go for the slimier ones as they're easier. With so many to choose from nowadays, why choose an honest company when you can easily choose a few scammy ones?
Plus, Tony's reports didn't "unfairly malign" the companies. There were no mistakes in his reports. Please post some errors with verifiable links. Here are the reports that I could find mary.cc
"Just for the sake of argument, suppose you were the CEO of a company that was being unfairly maligned. A small but vocal group of bashers chose your company because it is relatively unknown and the stock is thinly traded."
If there were a 100% honest company that is profitable, reports honestly, has a verifiable successful product, a clean management team, an entire world of "bashers" posting utter lies couldn't affect the company. Heck, look at HDI. Even when honest people post the honest drawbacks of the company it still doesn't go anywhere as they're basically a good strong company in the long run. There has to be something to back up the short reports, cold, hard facts. You can't just say that Bill Gates is a smelly poop head with two DUIs who has sex with underage squirrels and think the stock will go to zero tomorrow. Even if that were true, it wouldn't affect the stock as it's basically a "solid" company.
As someone posted earlier "We're not critical of this company because we are short," Einhorn said. "We are shorts because we are critical of this company." You are getting it reversed.
Now of course if someone like the "tree man" posts a fake press release, SEC document about the company, and it's believed and the price dumps, then the company should sue him instantly and he should pay. |
