Oceansun, when you write, "Well if there are a million shares short....maybe what Brent has been saying has merit."
I see the issue as whether Mr. Cook has himself created a situation where CTG "was taken down".
I have used the metaphor of Christ feeding 5,000 people with two fish and five loaves of bread to try to explain my ideas as best as I can: There are not enough shares in the small-cap companies that Mr. Cook recommends to satisfy the appetite of his readers.
So we get the results that we have seen with CTG and GEL...that these stocks burst to all-time-highs or crash to all-time-lows.
And in that process, a lot of money can be made at the expense of a his readers.
I am not saying he is doing this. I am saying he can, and therefore he may be, and I think this issue should concern his readers.
Mr. Cook is knowingly bringing an amount of buying and selling into GEL and CTG that these companies' markets simply cannot manage, so he creates pandemonium in these markets that is as predictable as is snow in the Arctic.
Meaningless statements of caution to his readers are...well...meaningless...as even prudent buying still produces more buying and selling than what these stocks can absorb.
There are equally meaningless because his readers seem unsophisticated in the market given their repeated maniacal buying and selling, so Mr. Cook can repeat "I warned them!" only a few times before the statement is meaningless. If I figured out that they don't get it after just looking at CTG and GEL, I assume that he figured it out before I did.
Mr. Cook creates a situation in which he can predict what a small-cap stock will do after he comments on it with a level of accuracy not matched by any wizard in the stock market.
Forget the people who say that there is no sure-thing in the stock market because Mr. Cook has proved that they are wrong.
I am not interested in whether there are a million shares short on CTG.
I am interested in whether Mr. Cook or friends or associates are involved in these shorts because shorting CTG at the 40-cent level was virtually 100% guaranteed to succeed if the people doing this were aware that Mr. Cook was about to release negative comments.
I have shorted many stocks, although I find it a bit unnerving, but shorting CTG, a stock trading at pennies that is producing good results and will likely have a mine in production next year, is not something I would recommend.
I have no idea whether Mr. Cook or his associates were shorting CTG, but it is not a stupid question to ask as he, himself, caused CTG to collapse.
Look at CTG's trading the seconds after his comments.
So, no...I am not worried about whether CTG will "fold its tent" but Mr. Cook’s comments will make it harder for CTG to avoid dilution.
If Mr. Cook was in any way connected to the shorts, or if Mr. Cook is currently buying CTG, then there is a clear conflict of interest between his interests and those of his blinded and stupid (or maybe just naive) readers.
Don't trust anyone who says, "Yes...there is an extreme conflict of interest for me, but it doesn't affect my judgment or actions"
Everyone's judgment is coloured by substantial conflicts of interest.
I do not know what he did, but there is nothing wrong with asking.
As long as his trading is secret from his readers, no one knows whether he is benefiting at the expense of his readers.
But the buyers of CTG at 80 cents to $1.20 are almost certainly the sellers at 18 cents, so if Mr. Cook was buying CTG prior to his comments and then selling into the maniacal buying that his comments produced when CTG hit $1.26, then I have a problem with this because he is benefiting from the pandemonium that he knowingly creates.
That is also why his I give no credence to his meaningless (and paraphrased here) "I told them not to sell like idiots" when he is 99% certain they will sell like idiots and 100% sure that he can benefit from what they do if he so chooses.
He can always declare his position in his newsletter so that his readers know his average buy and sell prices.
I really question his reader's' intelligence or ability to think critically.
Is it not relevant whether Mr. Cook was a buyer in the days prior to his 'buying' comments when both GEL and CTG crept up?
Is it not relevant whether Mr. Cook was selling into the pandemonium which he, himself, created, as this sets up a conflict of interest where he can sell his stock to his own readers in this virtually-guaranteed pandemonium?
Is it not relevant whether Mr. Cook sells before his “selling” comments to give real meaning to his "three-day" absurdity that implies that he suffers with his readers?
Is it not relevant whether Mr. Cook regularly takes advantage of buying stocks (CTG for example) after they crash for no other reason than that he caused the crash in the first place, as this sets up a conflict of interest as he can cut a stock in two in seconds and buy his panicked, blind, and very, very stupid readers’ stock at a 50% discount?
Is it not relevant whether Mr. Cook was part of the shorting of CTG or other stocks as this again sets up an enormous conflict of interest as his comments mean that he can cash in his short position every time?
Am I the first person to see an astounding conflict of interest?
Am I the first person to ask in a serious manner whether his readers have a brain in their skull or whether Mr. Cook has a cult-like following where criticism or questioning of him is a capital offense like those who criticize Scientology or Hare Krishna?
Am I the first person to ask what his buy and sell averages are?
Am I the first person to think that it is a crucial issue that he declare that he will never sell into the pandemonium that he creates when he recommends small-cap stocks as the pandemonium is inevitable and this can reasonably cloud his judgment given the enormous sums of money that would flow to him and his friends.
The conflict of interest is substantial because it would be a virtually guaranteed way to make an enormous amount of money in the stock market.
But I get the sense that his readers act like automatons who, when told to jump, are like lemmings going off a cliff…time after time after time after time after time.
I am not accusing Mr. Cook of anything wrong as I have no knowledge of him or his actions.
I am saying that when he recommends small-cap stock that they will either run or crash on his advice and that asking whether he is on the other side of his readers’ trades is a legitimate question…either selling his cheap stock into their insane buying, or buying their cheap stock into their insane selling...or shorting the stock beforehand…with CTG being a good example of all three of these possibilities.
All of these situations set up an astounding conflict of interest as hundreds of thousands of dollars...or even millions over a relatively short time...can be made, virtually risk-free by doing this.
I would personally offer Mr. Cook $50,000 or more to allow me to have access to his 'buying' and 'selling' comments beforehand, except that this would allow me to take advantage of his readers in a way which I would deem unethical.
But it would be a great business proposition nevertheless. I could buy 500,000 shares of some company at 30 cents, and I would break even at 40 cents. After that, I am making money.
And as I have written before, the fact that Mr. Cook truly "believes" is irrelevant as all "believing" in a stock is price-dependent 100% of the time.
CTG was at 44 cents just days before his comments and was trading there on the days Mr. Cook wrote his comments, unless he examines a stock and writes his recommendations overnight.
So CTG may have been a sell at 40 or 45 cents, but his readers never got a chance to sell there, although Mr. Cook had. His readers sold everything at about 18 cents.
Which is precisely my average cost.
The weirdest part: I already know the first people to criticize me for writing these posts are the people who give Mr. Cook $1,680 a year, people who never ask about potential conflicts-of-interest issues.
The very people who bought CTG at ONE DOLLAR and are selling it at EIGHTEEN CENTS are the first to attack.
Amazing…it’s really like a personality cult.
CTG will recover, and his readers are left with nothing.
Then they will sign up for another $1,680 a year...$16,800 in ten years, $33,600 in 20 years...and I expect that he has many long-term sunscribers...it will never occur to them to ask basic questions of conflict of interest questions that should occur to any thoughtful person.
I am suspicious of Mr. Cook precisely because of his “three-day rule” as he clearly states this to imply that he is in the same boat as his readers, when it indicates nothing of this sort, and in fact, it says nothing whatsoever, and to that degree, it is misleading.
Every person I spoke to as I tried to understand Mr. Cook after I saw the crash of GEL and CTG mentioned this rule as if it actually says anything. It was to them a testament that he celebrates or suffers alongside his readers when it does not mean that at all.
If he really does not buy cheap stock prior to his comments, something that would leave him with an average that is a fraction of his readers,” let him say so.
If he really never sells cheap stock into the massive buying that his comments produce, let him say so.
If he really does not sell his shares prior to his readers, and is therefore stuck with 18-cent CTG as is his readers, let him say so.
If he never shorts stocks like CTG prior to his selling comments, let him say so.
If he never takes advantage of his readers by crashing stock like CTG –and only to re-position himself at half the price- let him say so.
If he never takes advantage of an astounding potential conflict of interest that his comments create, let him say so.
Otherwise people can legitimately wonder what he is really doing when he knowingly creates the pandemonium that we have seen in the GEL and CTG markets, to name only two of many.
It hurts the companies, leaves his readers with the highest buy prices and the lowest sell prices, and sets up the possibility of an astounding conflict of interest and, if he really does not benefit from this, he can declare so in an open and honest way.
Am I really the first person to ask these questions?
If I am, his readers are likely nice, but innocent or unsophisticated people, who belong to a cult of personality that stops them from asking even the most basic questions that should occur to any thoughtful person who has looked at the pandemonium he creates in the small cap stocks that he recommends.
Sam