Some notes might need to be added here
First the statement that I caused the action that took this
stock higher and pressure the hedge fund guy here is probably
much more close to the truth than saying that I started the chain
of actions which led to that.
Second,all the financial offers those inside got,including this
lousy one,happened as a result to what happened in the market.
The PR and related sec filing the former CEO/current chairman issued
at the beginning of November 2009,probably because he thought that the
initial move in the price could be caused by a leak of insider information
and wanted to counteract that,had its big effect because it supported
the possibility to a big guy here that the big buying I did earlier
had been done by a big competitor who had a knowledge about the things
mentioned in that PR and sec filing.Other than that,the role of those
inside was almost entirely lowering the effect of what happened in the
market.They were to us shareholders like a lawyer who gets his client
a 10 year sentence when the client could have been acquitted based
on his own efforts without the lawyer's.
Third,when I spoke about those inside saving the big guy who was
taking the stock down and keeping it under pressure from the consequences
of the sho list and other things,I was not referring to that being done
through the big guy buying the shares they were pouring easily and
cheaply in the market(although that would also suffice to justify my
accusation).No,what I meant is consistent with what I have been writing
about this for a long time that Dutches financing was a face
for the big guy and so is the Clinton group and Conmed(at least for
the purpose of what is being done here).In addition I would be very
surprised if none of those investigations and lawsuit that was announced
related to this buy out was intended at least partly to distract from filing
a real lawsuit.
Forth,despite all the pump and dump talk by the profiles of the big
guy who came under pressure himself,the stock did not start its move
based on shallow reason.
If one imagines shares in the market as being a thick liquid that
takes a noticeable time to level itself back after someone scoops
from a pot containing it, then what I call a shallow reason would be
like when one base his actions on the thought or impression that
the temporary dip level created by a scoop done to the liquid represent
the level of the entire liquid.This did not happen as a result to my
buying.What reacted to my buying and initiated the move was a big
guy who is far from being misled by a thing like what I described
in the thick liquid example above.There is nothing special here.Any stock
can be taken to much higher prices if the big guys involved there
switch from compromising among them to a direct competition to obtain shares
of the stock.One way that could push the big guys to a direct competition
instead of compromising is if they think that another big guy entered the
arena who is not willing to abide himself with the compromising
that is going on.Thanks to those inside whose actions forced me to
reveal my being the source of the big buying (directly or indirectly
before these posts)I have much less chance to be mistaken for or have
a similar level of probability that my actions belong to some big
potential competitor again.
