Whenever I see articles emanating from these two online publishers, Motley Fool and Seeking Alpha, I have to ask myself, "how do they make money publishing these articles". Since they are both bullish in nature and published at a time when the chart has already shown distribution and begun the mark down phase, I have to conclude that the smart money is paying them to publish these articles to lure the public into buying the shares they have for sale.
The Motley article starts out with "It's time to review one of my favorite and easiest stocks to recommend: Bank of the Ozarks.", a decidedly bullish beginning leading to the obvious questions: Why is it time to review this stock? Is there a problem with this stock? Well the article goes ahead rehashing old information but does give us a disguised clue as to its problem with this buried gem:
"............These FDIC acquisitions have started to slow and management is not counting on these acquisitions for their success, but any new FDIC acquisitions will be icing on the cake. Bank of the Ozarks has also turned to acquiring a few small "live" banks (i.e. banks that have not failed and been taken over by the FDIC). Even without these acquisitions though, Bank of the Ozarks has plenty of organic growth ahead of it, as it always has........"
So management is not counting on these past and shrinking growth generators, visa vi, failed bank acquisitions, for their success. Oh really? Well what about the investors? Can the stock price still rise at such a rapid rate or at all without these acquisitions? Why was there a sign of weakness on April 3rd, a price plunge on high volume? Obviously some big investors are leaving the stock. Why no mention of that in the articles?