> This article is describing a very obviously risky investment as some sort of "dastardly" plot. It's worse than that. This article is using terminology that

> This article is describing a very obviously risky investment as some sort of "dastardly" plot. It's worse than that. This article is using terminology that all but accuses Hertz of doing something illegal while offering no proof whatsoever: > Multiple media reports have linked Hertz pumping stock to Robinhood traders, a group now notorious for short-term, speculative trading. Is Hertz "pumping" stock to Robinhood traders? Or is it simply recognizing that a ridiculous situation exists and attempting to use the situation advantageously? Seriously, we've all been told that the share price represents the consensus view of future company performance. A 900% gain and a 3x increase in shareholder count is potentially evidence that the market believes that Hertz will emerge from bankruptcy without wiping out shareholders and will become profitable. That's an argument in favor of issuing new shares rather than taking on new debt.