Journalism certainly would require readers are aware of rebuttals rather than dribbling out responses over four pieces not including unlimited space for 'open' letters.
The response to the hedges claimed to be bought over strip a glaring example of the farce which is going on.
Allan rebuttal - yea yea but the average hedge price was above what is available in the market. Which would require the average Hedge price INCREASING as it was layered into the existing book. Which I do not see in the reporting.
Even so it does not correct the poor perception he purposefully created leaving the impression with no expert individual investors buying Barron's content that the primary reason for the put prices being above spot was riding a contango market down not buying above strip.
Even now I am sure nealry all their readers who read the piece believe puts bought over strip are going to some how reduce real DCF over the next five years.
Real OLB style except destroying a reputation built over a very long time.
if one comes out this weekend, that would add fuel to the claim that the whole trading scheme against LINE Is a fraud from Hadgeye, Barrons, SA authors, etc. Their trading patterns need to be investigated fully.
If there were to be yet another Barron's article one has to ask about the state of journalism in today's society. Journalists are supposed to report all and then let the chips fall where they may.... in this case the SEC is conducting an informal investigation.
Why does Barrons as jounalists act as though they have more in the game than they should have? They report, you decide... that's the way it is supposed to be.... they have nothing new to report unless they held back reporting and if they held back reporting then they were not truly reporting therefore they were not behaving in any way akin to what is expected of the journalistic community.
I would be surprised if Barrons goes any farther now. They shouldn't because they should have reported it all the first time.