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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hogger who wrote (12541)	11/20/1998 1:50:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

That's fairly elementary, Hogger: &#147NOBODY has ever offered an explanation why the purposeful bashing of stocks in an attempt to drive down the value is any less shameful, evil and just plain damn wrong.&#148 For a "real" company&#151one the has compelling products, smart management, strong financials&#151"bashers" can't really do any harm. What companies with the above qualifications have ever suffered harm due to "bashers"?&#151name one. "Bashers" are swept away as the company turns in one decent earnings report right after another, like clockwork. On the other, crappy companies who have nothing to offer other than hype do indeed cause harm to investors. If the stock price does drop, it certainly isn't due to the "bashers". It would happen anyway as the skeletons eventually come out of the closet. Thus, the "Basher Conspiracy" theory purported by so many penny stock faithful is really a crock. Speaking of crock&#151Thanksgiving is coming up. Serving Stevia-laced pumpkin pie to all your guests?

To: Hogger who wrote (12541)	11/20/1998 1:52:00 AM
From: wonk	Respond to of 26163

...NOBODY has ever offered an explanation why the purposeful bashing of stocks in an attempt to drive down the value is any less shameful, evil and just plain damn wrong. Purposeful bashing of legitimate stocks is actually rare because its futile -- the fundamentals win out. There are enough investors with even rudimentary skills who can quantify intrinsic value and identify those companies which truly are undervalued. Consequently, bashing -- or shorting -- a legitimate company rarely harms a legitimate company because a floor value is reached where smart money rushes in and the stock price pops right back up.

To: Hogger who wrote (12541)	11/20/1998 1:55:00 AM
From: antibash	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

Hogger, many bashers are attached to the heading "modern day vigilante". Many more are attached to the heading for financial reasons! Short and Bash are always attached. Protecting your investment from Basher's will give you the Title of hypster, what do you do? anti

To: Hogger who wrote (12541)	11/20/1998 1:59:00 AM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

Hogger, I agree with your assessment. If an individual is purposely bad mouthing a stock with the intention of profiting from a price decline, then in my opinion, it is no different than the individual that would hype a stock to sell into a subsequent price rise (pump 'n dump). However, you should be aware that it is much easier for the bad guys to employ pump 'n dump than it is to bash 'n cash. You won't find too many bad guys profiting from shorting when the pump 'n dump is so successful. There are a few notorious shorters out there such as Asensio who is alleged by other posters here on SI to bash and short. But I don't do it, and I don't think that anyone posting here on AZNT does it either. I would be very happy to see the SEC take actions against anyone who shorts, and then bashes, as long as what is being "bashed" is clearly untruthful. You certainly can't fault someone who shorts a stock and then says something like "I don't think management can achieve these numbers". That's not really bashing. Bashing must be untruthful, or have the element of untruth in it. Just my opinion, though. KJC