4 ms·
There needs to be a lot more evidence than some random screed on the web. He barely gave a single example 'TASER' and frankly didn't really specifically indica
by jariel 6y ago
There needs to be a lot more evidence than some random screed on the web.
He barely gave a single example 'TASER' and frankly didn't really specifically indicate how that worked.
With 100 companies at any time under the squeeze it should be relatively easy for him to give a lot of examples and to specifically list the trades themselves, but also point at the 'media barrage' and highlight the asymmetrical effect those 'shadow shares' have.
It's a neat idea and maybe there's some truthiness to it, but there's no evidence.
- dragosmocrii 6y agoI wish we knew for sure whether the information presented in the paper has some truth to it, or is just sensational conspiracy stuff. Until then it is a theory that is worthy of consideration, imo, at least for drawing personal conclusions.
- nearbuy 6y agoIf you check the TASER stock at the claimed time (June 2005), there's no sudden dips in stock price. The site claims that a single article which was corrected 3 days later did damage to the stock price, but I'm not seeing it in the price history.