4 ms·
So not only did he not lose $1M (he invested $100k), the article doesn't tell us how (come back for part 2). Pretty disappointing journalism.
by colinbartlett 10y ago
So not only did he not lose $1M (he invested $100k), the article doesn't tell us how (come back for part 2). Pretty disappointing journalism.
- astazangasta 10y agoBecause it is serialized you conclude it is "disappointing journalism"? Hardly seems fair...
- bravura 10y agoThe article was a classic pump and dump scheme, in which I emotionally invested.
- syassami 10y agothe real crime
- daveguy 10y agoInvested $100k and his shares were worth $22k at the end of the dump. So he lost $78k -- a rough loss, but the article is false advertising.
- jsnell 10y agoPart 2 is there now. (Though not really satisfying).
- prakashk 10y agoIf you scroll down, Part 2 appears as "BIG PLAYERS, LITTLE STOCKS, AND NAKED SHORTS" Direct link: https://theintercept.com/2016/09/23/big-players-little-stocks-and-naked-shorts/ https://theintercept.com/2016/09/23/big-players-little-stock...
- ComodoHacker 10y agoAnd even Part 2 doesn't explain clearly what's happened.
- manarth 10y agoBut you'll be amazed at what's revealed in Part 3!
- rtpg 10y agoI would totally have paid $3 for advance access to the rest of the story at that point. I need to know!