OK, I'll start.
I feel the SI membership absolutely has the power to move stocks. In some cases, outright, and in other cases by creating momentum. The less the price and the lower the volume, the more the effect.
Penny stocks in particular are the most vulnerable to manipulation. The lure of tripling one's money is quite seductive. This goes beyond SI. A newsletter write-up, even a paid one, can cause enough interest that it attracts a crowd to the SI thread. Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd and sometimes people feed off each other to the point of hysteria.
Every company I've ever contacted pays attention to its SI thread. Many downplay the "chat" lines publicly, but, privately they take them seriously. A savvy IR person knows that stocks are very often an emotional play and, regardless of the veracity of what is written on SI, it's never a good thing to let one's SI thread turn negative.
SI has definitely leveled the playing field for small investors, but it has also allowed the hucksters to play to a larger audience. It always seems to be that the first to find loopholes are the unscrupulous. Eventually, people "catch on" to the games and learn to take everything in stride. I think there is still a lot of naivet‚ on SI about who and what to believe, but the gap is closing.
For SI to be successful, IMO, it must be self-policying. So far I feel SI has done a stellar job at balancing freedom-of-speech against common courtesy and decency. While it may be the internet, it's still their house and as long as SI is open and honest about their policy, they have a perfect right to do whatever they see fit to maintain it.
However, SI is not the SEC. They can't play judge and jury and determine what stocks are scams and which are legit. I personally welcome the SEC. No, I'm not advocating the SEC post on SI, just that there's plenty of good research on SI that could save them many man hours and allow them to do their job more effectively.
OK, finished. Now feel free to tell me how wrong I am (g).
- Jeff
|
