RE:RE:RHT responsetheinvestor22 wrote: When I first read the hit piece, I thought it was basically throwing a bunch of cherry picked (and in many cases very erroneous) arguments against a wall to see if anything would stick. It wasn't very well done at all and I didn't care if the company responded.
Also, it seemed to me that the short sellers needed to create some volume so they could efficiently liquidate their positions. I suppose it was mission accomplished in that regard.
Anyway, I can see the company will respond, which is just fine with me. Checking with legal first is a necessity, hence a slight delay. Doing a quick knee-jerk response would have been a very bad idea in any case.
Some here said that the hit piece was damaging. I don't see how it could be given its quality. I suspect this will turn out to be a tempest in a teapot. Things should return to normal rather quickly, at least in a perfect world. The shameless shorts will make a few bucks, which they almost always do, then move on.
Damaging from the perspective that many investors panicked and sold out because they didn't know whether to believe what was printed in the article. Hopefully this gets addressed next week by Lisa and those that choose to can buy back in. Given the past history it is very easy to see how this article would rattle many investors, old and new.
I have said it before and I will say it again, the incredible stupidity of shorting since its inception has caused many, many problems for good companys. The securities regulators in my view have completely dropped the ball on policing acceptable practices. Obviously there is nothing stopping these research firms from printing out right lies, there educated lawyers tell them what is needed in their disclaimers and anything flys. It's criminal in my opinion and over due changes are needed.