I'd like to know how many CEOs are really the perpetrators of the scams and how many are really the funds. My experience is its the hedge funds that do the bulk of the illegal activity and then use the CEOs as the scapegoat for their misdeeds. Then again Ive read that sometimes the CEOs go along with this because either they have no other option or because they are getting compensated from the hedge fund. More often than not CEOs are not trying to screw their shareholders but instead keep their company going. Some CEOs have to raise funds to further their products. Those are companies worth looking at. However most are already past the R&D stage and use the markets to fund their debt payments/salaries. Those are the companies to watch out for. Companies with high debt loads &/or S&M costs are simply too high to ever reach profitability without significant capital they simply do not have access to.
Could it be that there is a strategy to distract people away from looking at the basic data? Is all this an exercise to create more and more forum verbiage to drown out any serious discussion of evidence?