It is my considered opinion that deliberate distortion through the use of selective facts and clear omissions about competitors who have the same characteristics as LINN are not protected by free speech if a motive can be ascribed to either the author or the company by virtue of their gain in such selective reporting and fact usage. Each of us is too small to take any meaningful action, but as a group with competent representation, there can be a chance to make the market a safer place for the average investor. Am I a single voice in the wilderness or is there an army of us tired of being stomped by the forces that only lever their personal interest by distortion and big money.
I agree completely that barron's published an intentionally misleading article timed to do maximum damage to share price. Unfortunately I would have to say that chances of legal recourse are about zero. If you look closely at the article, the 'journalist' never actually says anything that isn't unsubstantiated opinion. He reports that 'accounting is controversial' or 'may be the most overvalued' and 'could be cut in half' -all deceitful in their implication but possible and legally defensible as opinions.
The greater deceit is including statements from biased entities that do not disclose that they seek to profit from their lies. The hedge fund does the lying and the profiting, barron's just gives it integrity. Barron's makes it's money from subscription and advertising without actually reporting anything they are responsible for.
All we can do is never let them pretend they don't peddle lies for their own profit at shareholders expense!
I'm all for it....This obvious manipulation and more than likely collusion... Just tell me when and where... Hell they've been locking up $ managers and their cohorts for insider trading.... This is no differen,t in my opinon and obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way.
"HANG EM HIGH"......bunch of crooks!!!
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I emailed the editor and a few other emails at Barron's and asked them about the lack of due diligence and possible pushing of a hedge fund positions (HedgeEye) has been mentioned. It was a sloppy and lazy article at best and collusion at worst. He was basically spreading rumors without any facts to back them up. He was no more than a blogger and I would expect an article in Barron's from a so-called journalist to at least give both sides of an argument before advocating for some hedge fund.
When I called in to cancel my subscription today--which I've had for decades, BTW--it was pretty apparent that the young lady who helped me had heard strains of the tune I was whistling on several occasions. I suggested that the SEC might be reading . . .
Agreed. One guy can destroy a good reputation for the whole team.
Some one could have written a fair negative opinion given the bad quarter. But there was no attempt to be objective. That is the real problem.
Unfortunately short sellers are a fact of life in the markets. Barron's however had an excellent reputation until now. The piece was simply a rehash with silly odds and ends from what are most likely short themselves. Hedgeeye coming up with a value of zero is really absurd. In fact it was so comical and blunt that it clearly was aimed at retail investors.
Reputation once lost is nearly impossible to recover. The first hit piece was weak and unworthy. The second was absolutely childish.
It is true LINE had an unacceptable quarter. Management was caught flat footed on ethane rejection, infrastructure constraints and bad luck on Hogshooter. All correctable so little analyst reaction. Which opened up the short attack again.
It is time for management to execute. Eyes on operations. To many balls in the air.