Yes and no. On occasion, there are people who have felt they were burned by an investment decision and have a personal vendetta. In this case, someone might become a mod simply to implement their vendetta against Company X.
Some mods might abuse their power to bash the stock in an effort to drive down the share price and accumulate more shares. These people have too high an opinion of themselves as I've never seen a significant correlation between what's said on the boards and the share price.
Other mods, like myself, are often mistaken for representing the opposite of the poster's opinion. This is because these mods see all sides of the equation and present the the evidence for/against an argument in their responses, playing devil's advocate encouraging a diverse debate. I've been called both a pumper and a basher by posters on my board in the same day.
The important thing is that the mod in question is balanced in their presentation of the evidence. If the evidence is largely against a stock, the mod might be perceived as a "basher". If the evidence is largely positive, the mod might be seen as a "pumper". IMO, however, pumpers and bashers share one thing in common ... both provide posts of little substance, logic, or evidence.
A negative post with logic and evidence is not a "bash", imo - it is informed dissent. A positive post with logic and evidence is not a "pump" - it is informed endorsement.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
