Penny Stocks TRADE on emotion for most people IMHO.Not every management in a penny stock are what aggressive stock traders make them out to be. It seems they like to create any form of exaggerated negativity so that any readers and/or any weak shareholders can feel Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the stock they hold or may be thinking about purchasing. Does this affect stock sentiment and keep the share price a wee bit lower than it would normally be without the constant, daily, and repetitive negative posts about a bad, bad, stock they seemingly post about endlessly and maybe even across different financial chat boards and then cross-referencing them to show negative sentiment about the stock prevailing and even growing?
Why might aggressive stock traders seem to target certain penny stocks with a good story and hope to make people feel that their respective managements are usually greedy and incompetent and that one should not be in that stock or just become a trader like them? Why do they seem to ramp up negativity around AGMs or other important events that happen as a company keeps progressing?
Therefore, is it an aggressive stock traders' objective to make anyone feel insecure about the underlying stock they hold or may want to purchase?
Does any prevailing negative sentiment contribute to further weakening or stalling of the share price after any even small upticks, so that the price of the shares gets a little weaker, so that traders like them, can get their hands on those shares to flip for ongoing profit on their trades??? Why can trades just be done without bashing? Does this seem like a normal way to trade anything? Is the strategy designed to devalue what they want so that they can trade it for higher (frequently)?
Are humiliation posts or even the notion of them a form of condescention (devaluing of others), even bullying to attain their trading objectives? Would this possibly be why aggressive traders behave this way on financial chat boards when they post)? Is this all an illusion or is it ever really based on 'reasonable' facts?
gilver