I remember the first time that I heard that providing alcoholic drinks to someone at a party in one's home could leave the host legally liable for the death or destruction that might be caused by one's too-drunk guests in a car accident, I thought that it was outrageous. But I now understand the logic.
When I look at Brent Cooks "buying" comments on both CTG and GEL this comes to back to me again.
When Mr. Cook recommends (wrong word...I know...but still accurate enough) a mid-to-large cap company, it is unlikely that he can affect the stock in any real way, so I look at his doing this as a completely different act than when he recommends a small cap stock.
It is unreasonable to assume that he, as I said in a previous GEL post, is buying alongside his readers:
"I will assume that it is at least reasonable to believe that he bought shares in GEL prior to his comments that rocketed the stock.
Since he states that the newsletter reflects the stocks that he owns, I also assume that he was not at his computer at 9:30 a.m. the day after the GEL comments with his close friends, wife and children all at their respective computers frantically trying to be the first person to buy the stock before his voracious readers ran the stock up like a rocket."
Mr. Cook can say as often as he likes that he told his readers not to act like idiots, but they have proved themselves so adequate in this area that his words are meaningless...and one can count on their idiocy as it is reliable and consistent.
He has had many years to figure out what I did in minutes: When he comments on a small cap stock, it runs like the bulls in Pamplona Spain, ironically a place when many people are severely gored and sometimes gored to death.
As I previously said, if I give the drunk outside the liquor store money with the admonition that he should not buy beer with my cash, only to see him walk endlessly into the store for beer, how many times can I do this before someone can question what I am doing as I know the outcome of my actions, regardless of my endlessly useless warnings?
I am not implying moral responsibility here with respect to Mr. Cook,
Rather, I am saying that as surely as the night follows the day, he know that his readers will run the heck out of a small cap stock when he writes "buying" and crash it when he writes "selling".
He is under no obligation to refuse to act in a way that negatively affects his finances even if this means buying or selling before his recommendations...or even selling his stock to his readers. stock that me may have bought days prior to his comments as it doubles in price overnight.
However, he can always state that he never does this or include his average buy and average sell price as a way to let his readers understand his financial gains or losses with respect to an individual stock that he writes about.
I know he doesn't have to, but his three-day rule implies that he is suffering with his readers...or maybe even worse.
It only took me two times...GEL and CTG...to see that Mr. Cook's readers will run a stock to high-heaven when he puts out a "buying" comment and drop it like bomb when he writes "selling", although I have now looked at additional examples.
It is ludicrous to assume that Mr. Cook wakes up at 9:30 the morning after his "buying" comments to compete with his readers.
And it is equally ludicrous to believe that he woke up after his "selling" comments on CTG smashing all the 20-cent bids competing with his lemming-like readers...shares that he could have sold a few days or weeks earlier at 40 or even 44 cents in an atmosphere as relaxed as the Fijian Islands.
Is this what happened?
Now, Mr. Cook has written his first-ever post in response to one of my GEL SH comments, so I would welcome his input here. I would welcome a reasoned discussion about what happens to the small (NOT mid-or-large) cap stocks after his "buying" and "selling" comments.
I was aware of his three-day rule from the brokers I spoke to, all attesting to Mr. Cook's honesty, but when I emailed one a few days ago asking how "dumb" she could be to put faith in this three-day rule when it does not stop him from selling every share in the days or weeks prior to his comments, she responded, "idk...maybe pretty dumb i guess...good point sam."
I am not on a crusade against Mr. Cook, and I am talking with some friends about actually subscribing to the newsletter with an eye towards shorting the small cap stocks after recommends them. I will subscribe in my own name, so I guess he can refuse to accept me if he so chooses (it's Sam + a Chinese family name, so not hard to spot, although I am a CBC).
That is not to say that I think he recommends stocks that he believes are bad investments.
On the contrary, I believe that he never recommends stocks that he doesn't completely believe in.
But that is irrelevant from where I sit, as his recommendations will run the stock better than a North Korean rocket regardless of...or maybe because...he believes in the company.
But in the stock market "believing" in a company is price-dependent 100% of the time.
I may believe GEL is a buy at 37 cents but not 75 cents where it was soon after his comments.
I may believe that CTG is a buy at 76 cents, but not at $1.26 where it traded following Mr. Cook's comments.
Or I may believe that CTG is a "sell" in the 35 to 45 cent range, but an astounding buy at 17 cents where it traded most of yesterday...and where I continued to increase my position.
So, it is possible that Mr. Cook is a CTG buyer, and he and I have been competing with each other for the same shares for the last few weeks...and I will double my money at the very point where Mr. Cook told his readers to sell...although not one reader sold there as 100% of the six million shares it has traded has been around 20 cents, so no one sold at 33 or higher cents...or at least not his readers.
But the end result is the same: He can buy as much as he wants prior to his "buying" comments and sell it all if he wishes prior to his "selling" comments and avoid the pandemonium after his comments double (or crash) a stock overnight.
In fact, as the stocks rise so dramatically afterwards, I wrote in a SH posts on the GEL site that I think that he has a moral obligation to sell into his self-created pandemonium as he has a greater responsibility to his family than to his cult-like readers...so I am not accusing Mr. Cook of dishonest activities if he does.
These posts are all about the three-day rule, a seeming mantra by the well-known Mr. Cook and his disciples.
It implies that he is in the same boat as all his readers...that he suffered with the rest of them when CTG crashed and (reasonably) that he suffered as much in the twin all-time-highs that both GEL and CTG reached after his "buying" comments...rather than benefiting from both the pandemonium on the buying or selling side beforehand.
If Mr. Cook refers to his three-day rule as a statement implying that this shows that he suffers with his readers and is essentially "in the same boat", then I have the right to ask whether his buy and sell prices are radically different than his readers...especially if he benefits from the vast increase in prices after his readers shoot a stock to the moon...or just as predictably crash as with CTG.
Is he a CTG buyer now?
Inquiring minds want to know...well...at least mine does.
The stock was 44 cents days before he wrote about it.
Now it is 17 cents.
Since he knows a passing comment to his readers, like "act as if you have a brain" has never worked before, why would anyone think it would now?
If you are unhappy about all this, it is no one's fault but your own.
You just are not listening to Rod carefully enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTDtHw4fckk