Your statement seems to imply that a "no" vote is tantamount to wanting to the price to fall.
Thank you so much for catching that. My statement that the price action of yesterday seems to suggest that they have not been very effective to date has to be one of the most poorly worded ones I have ever written. It does imply that the lobby wants the price to fall. Not for one second have I thought that any member of the lobby has as an objective to negatively impact the price either in the short term or the long term. I am certain that they have undertaken this action in the belief that it will drive the price higher both now and in the future. My sincerest apologies to anyone here who is a member of the lobby for ever implying otherwise
My concern is about unintended bad consequences. Shareholder activism is tricky stuff that can easily end up with one having egg on one's face. Shareholder activism that involves individual investors lobbying institutional investors for support of their agenda is trickier still and the likelihood of unintended bad consequences escalates. What I should have said and truly regret not having said in my post is that "Yesterday's price action seems to suggest that there have been no unintended bad consequences to date from the lobbying effort."
Doesn't look like I will get in a round this weekend but I did take clamcakes advice and took a nice long walk with my beautiful and brainy wife before the rains came. It was great. I should have known better than to spend a couple hours putting that barbeque grill together two weeks ago. Seems like it hasn't stopped raining since LOL.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
