Replies to post #80338 on China Growth Stocks

[pos_stock_hoarder]

AGREED!

[niloc]

AGREED.

[rru2s]

I welcome an advance warning of "dangers you're not free to discuss." A great example would have been the Geo post saying that they knew something about PUDA the night before. I wasn't in that stock, but I scrutinize these boards every day and if I had been in PUDA I would have sold that day. Same deal for the LTUS land transaction - Geo told us about it before they unleashed the video and details. I weighed the evidence and decided there would be enough time to observe the market's reaction, which I did, and when it started to lose support I sold before it got out of hand. I also recall reading just after CCME was halted that someone knew "the word on the street" was that the auditor resigned. As an investor, I want to read those things myself and decide for myself. However, a post like that coming from an investor who has been on I-Hub a long time and has a good reputation for honesty should be treated differently than, say, a brand new alias showing up with post number 1 and making some out-of-the-blue claim to secret knowledge of fraud. The latter would seem to be a blatant attempt at spreading FUD, the former might be given the benefit of the doubt. And overriding all of this is the law - if it would appear that insider information is being released, of course the duty of I-Hub would be to handle that in the legally correct manner.

[Danduedil67]

You are right on target here Tom
I know that in the course of doing legitimate due diligence SOMETIMES the person on the other side of the phone, or typing the response email, simply "screws up", and a tidbit of information comes out that should not have. In the spirit of this board...sharing information for mutual financial gain.... folks with this knowledge try to get it out without divulging anything that would cause themselves or their inadvertent source a problem.

I know for an absolute fact that this scenario has played out several times on this, and a few of the other satellite boards.

To ban folks who often contribute enlightening information is bad. To ban rato, whose due diligence skills are top notch, is dangerous.

Just ask yourselves this question: If Gary came out with a negative post about a particular stock... but did not include very many details... would you pay attention? Read between the lines? Ask some more questions maybe?
What if Fernando were to do the same? You would be flirting with disaster if you did not pay careful attention to a heads up from him, even if it lacked any detail.
I think Brian (ratobranco) is in the same category.

Just my two cents
-Dan