Betty: thank you so much. Your response is both lucid and coherent. You have to make allowance, as I am a very simple fellow.
Given your premises, your conclusions are basically sound. But I think your premises are faulty, hence your conclusions are wrong. Please consider the following: You premise that all the buyers are smaller buyers, like us, with no competing large institutional or corporate buyers. You further premise that those smaller buyers who are not yet in, but contemplating (perhaps) buying, would be discouraged rather than encouraged to buy if the price falls, thus maintaining a buying opportunity for those who are already in and believe in the company and its future. (This is sound as regards contemplating buyers who are not confident of the company's prospects, but unsound as to contemplating buyers who are confident, since the latter, generally, would be more apt to buy at a lower price--a minor point.)
Now, you argue that these press prostitutes have no possible motive for restraining the price, since they would be "playing" to a rare or nonexistent type of buyer. Rhetorically, you argue, they surely would not do it for pure meanness. Ok. But if there are knowledgeable LARGE buyers (who certainly have just as great need and desire to buy cheap as the little person), your conclusion falls. The false press serves the large buyers in a twofold way: The smaller buyer, to the extent he or she is without inside type knowledge, or is not emotionally attached to the stock, is either scared into selling or induced not to buy, thus corrupting the normal supply-demand equation. Often aided by the market makers, who are totally corrupt, these "big boys" are thus given the time they need to get in cheaply, which they must do a little at a time so as not to price themselves out. Once the big boys are in as far as they desire, the stock is released to market forces. The big boys reap a bonanza. If one of the big boys here is a major oil company, it will perhaps have control of AIPN, or at least great influence over its destiny; all, perhaps (and perhaps not), to the great detriment of the smaller holders. Scavenging shorts, like those who drift in an out of this thread, are small running dogs for the big boys, getting table scraps.
So goes the reasoning of us paranoids who can see no other motive for the press to mislead, AS THEY HAVE DONE.
People who ought to know to know tell me that the above practices are time-honored.
I am anxious for your response, if you care to give one.Geneat. |
