RE:RE:Glenn Chan's Viewtl;dr I wouldn`t trust anything Glenn Chan says.
I think he lost a lot of money too, or is about to. I read some of his articles because of this thread. He seems to be more an opinion piece rather a research/logic writer. He is welcome to believe what he believes, but he seems to make the mistake of thinking that anyone that disagrees with him must be fraudulent. Also, his morals seem to be out of whack. Tellingly, he believes it is ok for someone to fake an identity/investment company to manipulate a stock price. See his defence of Jon Richard Carnes in https://glennchan.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/i-am-disgusted-by-the-bcsc/
He doesn't get that if someone has legitimate concerns/questions about the accuracy of a report, he can discuss those questions legitimately and openly, whether anonymously on bullboards or as a known analyst or a blogger.
When Carnes is accused of making up a company, persona, and fake biography, it is to manufacture some "authority" to call a stock fraudulent. It becomes apparent that his sole purpose is to create a means to manipulate the stock. That Chan tries to defend this in any way indicates his moral compass.
Chan`s values do not have to match my values, but knowing that he has the `the ends justify the means` value system lets me know that his words aren`t worth the paper the are written on. His readers better be aware of this, because if he feels Carnes did no wrong, then Chan may not be too fussy about leading his readers astray while he makes money manipulating them.
Basically, his defense of Carnes destroys his own credibility.