If Charles Manson said Christianity is the tops, most people would still say, "I don't care what he says, F that guy."
First part = editors can't check everything.
Second part = if it becomes known that an author is BS, SA takes action.
Both parts are not mutually exclusive.
Two things. First is SA does not check all facts before publishing, there is simply not enough staff or time. Second, if an author on their site is misrepresenting himself, it hurts the overall credibility of SA. So they would want to weed such things out or else lose the trust of the readers.
I disagree. If a carnival barker tells me there is free money inside, I still won't go in, because after all, he is a carnival barker.
It may be a leap to say it is Maltin himself, but interesting nonetheless if the IP is in that location. How'd you find the IP address? I'd like to check it out as well.
For the fun of it, I also direct messaged MEDL on Twitter to the new article and the comments section. Just so they can have a laugh or something.
It's still up, too. Maybe SA is investigating the firm or something. Lots of complaints may warrant that from them. I can't prove this but I've heard from people on other boards here that SA got wind of some authors slanting stuff without disclosures and burned them on SA.
The author probably isn't short or long, I'm just saying SA has a brand to keep in tact and enough complaining might get them to at least look into any issues.
He could be new - the first article was written in October. He has written 10 articles in the span of a month and then none since the MEDL article. There have been a lot of comments on most of them too.
So 10 articles, one about every 3 days. That's a lot of research done and articulated in a very short amount of time. So, with that kind of output, you'd THINK someone has heard of the company OR, at least, they'd have more info on themselves to get the word out on them.
Of note, 5 out of 10 articles are about ARMN.
His very first article written was about ARMN and stated "Disclosure: I am long AMRN." On Oct 17th, AMRN's stock price fell over 50%. On Oct 20th, his first article ever was published. My guess is he got burned and wrote an article hoping to bring the price up, make sense of it all, whatever. There was no SEC filing research or whatever he and his company claim. It was a reactionary article.
He went on to write 4 more AMRN articles. Reading through them, his tone gets darker, like the wind has been kicked out of him. His comments also get snarky and downright rude. The MEDL article was published less than a week after his last AMRN article. He made some author comments on that article but has yet to write another article.
He popped up a couple more times to make comments, the last of which was a comment on someone else's AMRN article and he trolled in to make a snarky comment: "Exactly, so your should take your own advice and stop reading articles about it and leave the rest of us alone to our own thoughts."
If you follow his articles, it sounds like one person on his own, with no actual business backing him. He's just a guy at a computer.
Chase.Bancroft has a point, I give him this - the article itself can be valid without the merit of the author. BUT, when the author is perpetrating himself as someone he is not, everything he publishes should be taken as something with an agenda. His character and integrity are questionable, as are his motives.
And wait a sec, are you saying any lie can be fine as long as the article is ok? So if I write an article and about how MEDL is great, all the while my profile says I work for a made up firm called Million Dollar Research Inc., that's all good by you? SA should be fine with it too?
It's true they are hard to find or perhaps not even real. You'd think someone, somewhere, ANYWHERE on the internet would have something about them. It looks more like they don't exist.
Probably not true. The author listed the company as a company he is with on his profile page, not the article. The editors at SA probably don't bother to check the "About Me" page when an article is submitted, they just just check the content.
For Cool, set a sell for a decent, non-greedy price of .61 or .62 and see if it gets hit. 10% gain is nothing to sneeze at. Buy again at a lower price. Rinse and repeat. Zumba is out and no one cared on the Street. It is a dead, small swing stock only right now. Hoping it goes over .65 is purely a lotto play. But hey, maybe you like the lotto?
It may have one or two quick pump and dumps before the reverse split in Feb so bigger hands can get out with a little extra money but those are impossible to time. Good luck!
Ha, yeah. I tried about 7 or 8 different times. Yahoo bots must not have liked some things in it so I had to edit it a lot to get what is now on this board. It was a lot longer.
Now that is interesting. You may try a more clever way of writing it that doesn't seem so "J'accuse!" in nature.