BORN - I have to be honest, I'm not interested in this name until the company says something. Very fishy.
No response has been made to any of the arguments. Not by analysts, not by the company, not by pumpers. All we hear is silence.
They may not be the right documents, but geoinvesting pulled them from two independent sources. And geoinvesting has more credibility than anyone in this space.
If the SAT documents are not the right documents, then the company needs to say that. Or even better, the company needs to put this issue to rest and present the documents. This cloud of silent secrecy just isn't going to fly in U.S. capital markets. That's not how we do business--and for good reason.
As for Little, what I like about him in comparison with other shorts is that he's not short the name. I have no problem with people publicly arguing over the truth about a stock. None of us hestitates to advertise the virtues of our own holdings, how can we object when someone advertises the negatives? As long as the person doesn't go short before they sound the alarms, I don't think they are doing anything wrong. They are giving the individuals who are persuaded by the argument a chance to make a more informed investment decision. And for the individuals who are not persuaded by the argument, they are giving those individuals a chance to buy in at a lower price than would otherwise be available. In the end, whoever has the truth wins, and whoever doesn't loses. The way markets work.
If the argument is decent, the stock will amost always drop, whether or not the argument is ultimately true. That's what irks me about shorts that take short-term positions before publishing articles. Their short-publish-cover_the_trade tactic makes them money whether they are right or wrong, and in that way represents a type of fraud in its own right.
But Little doesn't seem to be doing that, so I say bring it on. Examine whatever stock you want, then we can all make more informed decisions.
AI
