An interesting and valid point:
<<as an investor I resent ANYONE who either distorts the facts or
otherwise presents misinformation designed to frighten the public about any particular company. The company...in this case PLSIA...stands to be severely injured by such guerilla tactics, as do existing shareholders.>>
However, couldn't this just as easily read:
<<as an investor I resent ANYONE who either distorts the facts or
otherwise presents misinformation designed to [hype] the public about any particular company. The company...in this case PLSIA...stands to be [significantly benefited] by such [hype] tactics, as do existing shareholders.>>
If it cuts both ways, which I am assuming you will concede it does and should, then shouldn't the bounty have been for the CEO's head since she very clearly hyped things???
False is false whether it is long or short. The difference, IMO, is that the company and its officers, any company and not just PLSIA, have a greater duty, IMO, that any single individual not associated with the company. Who are most people more likely to listen to: the company CEO or ANY poster on SI?
Just because you or I am long or short any particular company does not mean that the contrary views are guerilla tactics designed to either hype or injure a company, its shareholders, or those that have shorted it. As intelligent people, we should be able to sift through the presentation method - even if we find it distateful - and evaluate the content.
I will freely concede that most of us don't know enough to know whether PLSIA's CEO's statement were simply "overexuberance" or "a deliberate attempt to mislead." But, in either event, some of the statements were plainly wrong, even if just in hindsight. That usually gives people reason to pause and consider, at least.
I have seen many stocks get hit badly simply because rosy, overly optimistic, financially motivated pictures painted by the company's officers did not come to pass. This hardly helps the companys' shareholders that invested or continued to be invested because they believed the hype -- however motivated.
Just because someone has negative things to say about a company is a far cry from "guerrila tactics." The day that anyone is dissuaded from posting negative information about any company for fear of personal reprisal - regardless of the accuracy of the information - is the day we all lose. It is a shame that people that post, on SI and elsewhere, less than rosy information about companies routinely get flamed for their efforts.
For better or worse, there is generally much more inaccurate positive hype about companies than inaccurate negative hype -- although this may be simply because there is more positive posting than negative posting. Heck, if all the positive hype on SI were true, every stock on SI would be up over 400%....Obviously, that's not the case.
Does it matter that Westergaard has conceeded that Pluvia's statements of fact were not false or misleading? Probably not any more than it mattered to most longs what Pluvia had to say in the first place.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox too...except to say that anyone that buys or sells based solely on what they read on SI or any other stock message board deserves to lose their money...
Just my thoughts...
WTMHouston |
