The article seems professional. The author presents a lot of data in a very good scientific-like style but who gives you the guarantee that the data he presents is real. It is strange to know that a short has access to al that information. I can write you similar article and put my own data closed to the reality but with some small modifications. Shorting is more complicatd than it seems.
"The article seems professional. The author presents a lot of data in a very good scientific-like style but who gives you the guarantee that the data he presents is real" - Exactly!
The article was obviously written by the same guy who was on this board last week, giving the exact same specific arguments. MCMXS3
This person or more likely a group of shorts are obviously getting hit really hard in this position and have taken their argument to the wires via, "any body can write anything they want and get published under a news item"? via Seeking Alpha in an attempt to deceptively encourage people to sell, while buying to cover SPWR themselves at a lower price.
It's obvious to me that this person, though educated in the ways of the market doesn't give a single compelling reason to sell, but rather uses a scare tactic to get their very misleading , one-sided argument across.
I used to work in the industry and sat next to people who worked on our "short desk" , they were some of the most intelligent people you ever met and gave a very compelling argument. In the end, they zigged when the market zagged and were sent packing.
MCMXS3 - It sucks to go from a posh job on Wall Street to driving a cab for a living, that is where you're headed if you keep making big bets like this. At least hedge yourself on this position, buy some protective call options.
The article has no value because it does include changes, it's the changes that drives the price not previous information, all changes are good the it's at least good for two years, that's #$%$ more important than what happened last year or last five years