Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cfimx who wrote (14497)	5/18/2002 6:52:04 PM
From: Wallace Rivers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78548

That's not a red flag IMHO, that's proper shareholder activism. They HAD to respond to what was, in essence, a bear raid, if they are to be deemed responsible. Did you listen to the CC? There were plenty of shorts allowed to ask questions, they weren't just brushed aside. This wasn't an event staged to omit the shorts, it was well managed, informative, and generally without invective, when there could have been plenty of mud slinging.

To: cfimx who wrote (14497)	5/21/2002 1:29:44 PM
From: Bob Rudd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78548

<<When you see a company have a CC to answer the shorts, that's a red flag.>>When fundamental shorts take significant short positions and announce what they think is wrong with the company....that's clearly a red flag. Even though I'm long ALD, I respect the fundamental work of analytical shorts and the issues brought up. But to imply that ALD's responding to the shorts comments, addressing the questions and issues raised, and opening channels of communication...that that response strategy indicates management wrongdoing...I don't go along with that. OTOH, If they were to declare war on the shorts with lawsuits, attempted squeezes, and personal attacks on the shorts...that would be a serious red flag.