InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 16
Posts 1779
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 12/30/2010

Re: ratobranco post# 26016

Wednesday, 03/16/2011 8:59:11 PM

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 8:59:11 PM

Post# of 34471
Red Flags and Dissent Posting Area on I-Box

This is exactly the quality of post that meets what I recently defined as "peer-reviewed dissent" i.e. a short opinion. Frankly iHub policy should have this available in the iBox for all SEC reporting securities under discussion.

For example, I would like to add a reference to Rato's post to the iBox. I left area for two other quality posts. Send nominations to Moderator or an Assistant Moderator. Mods should make efforts to be fair in the subjective area of evaluation.

Note: I am deliberately not using the word "short" or "long"; this is not the "Short Box". The area is to give some opportunity to reference red flags, i.e. things to consider that are question marks that are unique and specific to the company. This will also help people who trade evaluate the company both ways and provide info useful in calculating whether to hedge.

Not a one-liner like Seasaw or Don Monfort would write, and not a list of thoughtless bashing, but a qualitatively well- written thoughtful expression that names red flags and discusses issues with the company by someone who has been posting for quite a while like Rato. (Previous sentence is not a sentence, but you get the point).

This may not be popular, certainly not before recent events, but it is healthy to have a marketplace of ideas and would set this board head and shoulders above others.

I am willing to post other stay away/ red flag arguments too if they are of this quality, comprehensive and well structured. We have plenty of long arguments on a stock. A dissent area also signals a company that pays attention what problems longs take seriously. This is healthy for a company that cares about shareholders.

Those who might not like this can look at everything else on the ibox instead. As the Supreme Court held in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) "Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes". In this case a man was arrested in a courthouse for wearing a shirt that said, "F*ck the Draft" (except there was no "*" for the letter u).

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=15

So I am asking your support to extend leeway here to add the post and I'll leave it to Majik to figure out how to make the area look nice. If there's an uproar, ask Brrp and I'll abide by his ruling as he is the Moderator and, as an Assistant, I am at his service.

-Andrew

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.