The "manipulator" is the Motley Fool Stock Advisor. I subscribe to it. But whenever they recommend a small cap or midcap stock that is capitalized at under $1 billion, the stock will gap up 5% at the open the next day, so no one actully has a chance to buy it at the price the newsletter recommends it. The newsletter can then calculate that 5% up move on their scorecard as if they called it, when none of their subscribers can actually match that performance. The Regulators and the SEC really needs to start looking at stock newsletters when they are done with the mutual funds.
I am also a subscriber to MFSA, and Tom Gardner recommended the stock for reasons you'd normally expect--a company generating excess cash, paying a dividend, repurchasing shares, and growing, with a beaten down stock price. I'll leave the specifics for those who wish to subscribe.
I'll also admit that the stock prices of small caps that Tom may recommend have often popped on the first day, like it did with this stock. That doesn't mean, however, you can never get the price at which the stock was trading when recommended. Many of Tom's picks have traded near or below the original buy in price during the days, weeks, or months following the picks. Patience, and limit orders, is the key. I've set a limit order for SSNC at a price I find reasonable to buy in. If I get it fine, if not, there are other stocks.
Also this stock at a lower price was available for you to buy prior to Tom's pick. Why should Tom be penalized because of the pop--that is the price at which the stock was trading at the time of the pick. Finally, does it really matter what Tom's scorecard says? To me the only relevant scorecard is my own, and my winners recommended by Tom far exceed my losers.