A couple quotes from John Hempton in an article today, it's not directly related to NOG. For those that don't know him, Hempton has put out several negative research pieces about Northern Oil on his blog.
IPO VIEW-Risks mount from U.S. exchanges big China push
Fri May 20, 2011 6:20pm EDT
* Chinese IPOs pouring onto NYSE, Nasdaq
' "(NYSE and Nasdaq) have decided to sacrifice reputation for their short-term competition purposes, short term listing revenue purposes," said John Hempton, chief investment officer at hedge fund Bronte Capital Management in Australia, which has shorted Chinese stocks" '
'Bronte's Hempton said he believes things may be getting out of hand.
"Once upon a time, the stock exchanges were a virtuous circle," he said. "They enforced laws which engendered trust and produced higher prices, and on it went...Now we're in a vicious circle in the U.S" '
He seems to be having too much fun trying to twist things around that were not even said. I didn't mention their articles.
Do you know anyone at Wharton?
Wouldn't you like to go?
I think you are splitting hairs again stockmonger, the Montana thing is the only one that stands out as inaccurate, but that is not materially relevant, I'm sure that was just an oversight on Hempton's part, when he said the sweet spot in the Bakken's was in N.D. that is more like an opinion. But he should print a retraction for that. That correction alone does not change the basic story here. The other issues are gray areas that we don't know for sure about. Isn't it true that depletion was not being addressed early on? And also true that Reger's wife works for Ashwood, I would say there is a related party conflict of interest. It's the kind of thing a court might have to sort out. My hunch is that eventually it could come down to that. I'd like to see a forensic accounting investigation, and then we might know who is telling the truth here.
Is that the best you can come up with?
"Sand, stockmonger never proved that Hempton or Davis intentionally posted materially false information."
Lets parse that statement.
"Intentionally" -- Intent is hard to prove without a wire, but is reasonable to surmise based on circumstantial evidence.
"Materially false information" -- I'll assume you meant false material information. This is a gray area. The depletion argument was misleading (wrong peer) but the numbers were from filings. The acreage in Montana was false and material, but not clearly disclosed by NOG. The Ashwood stuff was misleading but immaterial. The smear about hunting was misleading because the timing well prior to NOG formation was not disclosed, but this too was immaterial.
The case for intentionally materially misleading is strong. Not so much for false.
The SAIC and SEC don't line up perfectly for a variety of reasons, but many Chinese RTO frauds have been identified because they had blatant discrepancies.
Here's something Bejamin Wey wrote, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Sand, stockmonger never proved that Hempton or Davis intentionally posted materially false information. She just has it in her head that they did, apparently you do to.
As for the alias stpioc, on the IOC board, I'm pretty sure that fellow's name is really Jenso Reichert, he also uses the name jensoreichert on that forum, it's pretty obvious if you read it regularly, and I'm pretty sure he is a company shill who is friendly with insiders, probably trades on insider information, and uses a variety of other aliases on the Yahoo message board to tout the stock. Jensoeichert posted that he lives on a yacht near Interoil's operations in New Guinea, he's basically an "offshore pumper", and brags that he has made a lot of money buying IOC low and selling high. Sounds like pump and dump to me.
Sand, be careful where you get your information, there are lots of wolves in sheep clothing in the markets, here's a good example, a man named Benjamin Wey, he writes scholarly articles about investing in China, at first glance he seems like an independent industry expert, one article I read was basically trying to explain why Chinese legal filings don't match SEC filings, it was mostly B.S., if you dig deeper you would discover he is actually a stock promoter, and a crooked one at that:
From a Barron's article:
"One of the most controversial promoters of Chinese reverse takeovers, Benjamin Wey, continues to find work. Wey's history of suspension and censure by Nasdaq and state securities regulators has been amply reported, including a Barron's story ("AgFeed Trips on Its Way to the Trough," May 19, 2008). Since our piece describing Wey's work for the hog farmer AgFeed Industries (FEED), the company has missed production targets and its shares have slumped from 15 to below 2.50. The company could not respond to queries by presstime. In an interview last year with the English-language newspaper China Daily, officials of his New York Global Group investment bank claimed that 15% of the Chinese companies on Nasdaq were its clients. The firm has offices in Beijing and at 40 Wall Street in New York. On its Website (www.nyggroup.com), Wey's firm brags of alliances with four city governments and China's central bank. With hedge-fund operator Michael D. Witter—grandson of the brokerage founder Dean Witter—Wey last year announced plans to raise $300 million to invest in China companies. Neither Wey nor Witter responded to Barron's queries.
Jamesis, try to read the post correctly. The article's author called it: "false or misleading negative information." That is what was written.
If you want some specific list then ask stockmonger, or you could just go re-read her many posts and make your own.
Was that Yahoo thread different?
What was that all about?
Internet message boards only influence the retail investor. The percentage of retail investors in stocks like NOG, BEXP, CLR is so small that they cannot possibly move the pps.
Thinly trades stocks may be a different story as I'm sure the pennies are too.
About a year ago 2 moderators in the Investors Hub board were convicted in a pump and dump scheme. I don't know much about that case but I'll bet it was a thinly traded issue.
Sand you seem to be stuck on that conspiracy stuff, what you are referencing is the "intentional posting of materially false information" to drive down a stock price, which is different, Bronte and Street sweeper have done none of that, they have posted material facts and opinions based on those facts. You seem to think that anything critical posted must fall into the former category. Short sellers make decisions based on red flags, since none of us can see the entire picture of what management is up to. They often turn out to be right about their hunches, sometimes they are wrong; but still that is not the same as "intentionally posting material false information".
There is a time and place for presenting critical research and analysis.
Please show me what you have found that is "materially false information" intentionally posted by the short sellers? If you can't then I think you should quit with the conspiracy stuff.
"Once upon a time, the stock exchanges were a virtuous circle," he said???
What planet was this John Hempton from?
Since when the stock exchanges were virtuous?
The guy got a couple of winners in CAGC and probably in CCME too, and he went out like he was god?
The only truth about the exchanges and the Wall Street has always been about making big money. There isn't anything else more true than that.
So, he is short NOG. Every short seller must justify their positions. What else was new?
21 mln shares shorted?!
Based on his missteps with Oil Search and Interoil I don't think Hempton is much of a oil man. I think he got involved because of the insider sale then tag teamed on that useless Melissa davis article. He was Barry Minkows ally in the IOC short attack. I will assume he will be gone shortly unless the depletion issue comes up again or something else shows up in the future. Better targets than NOG in this market.
Neither Hempton nor Davis know much about the O&G business. I think they're just another Muddy Waters copy cat that thought NOG could be manipulated just like the Chinese RTOs. I still don't see much of an effect on NOG due to Hempton and/or Davis. It says a lot about your trading prowess when you have to try and "manufacture" your trades, either long or short. Wonder if his Buddy Barry will drop a dime on Hempton to get some kind of a deal with Justice.