3 ms·
I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which
by mrzimmerman 6y ago
I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which damages the credibility of their reporting. I think it's fair to say the same thing of overly positive reports about a specific company coming from an institution that holds normal stock in that same company.
It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about. However, I'll grant that the world doesn't often let us work with ideals for a lot of very valid reasons (retirement accounts, for instance).
- ffggvv 6y agopeople do the opposite all the time? buy a stock and then write articles or go on tv saying how great the company is, even if it could be a fraud as long as they disclose the position i don’t see the issue
- gruez 6y ago>I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which damages the credibility of their reporting [...]. It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about Not really, because then you run into the opposite problem: "experts" making random predictions without putting their money where their mouth is. In a sea of "experts", who do you trust?
- esyir 6y agoThe catch here is that this then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it? Report from Well known institution gains credence regardless of quality. This drives down prices not because they were correct, but because of their influence..