Bloomberg vs SFCC

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by loufah, Jan 3, 2006.

  1. Have been following the SFCC saga since Bloomberg started their series of negative articles. It's pretty amazing how much they spin things. Every time SFCC comes out with a positive press release, it's spun into something negative by Bloomberg. When innocuous things happen such as building inspectors look at one of SFCC's buildings that's undergoing renovations, Bloomberg reports it as "officials began probing the building's safety". There are a bunch of other examples, but here's what happened today:

    After there were allegations made in a Bloomberg article in November that SFCC wasn't adequately screening test subjects, Senator Grassley asked to talk to SFCC executives. This was announced Nov 18, and the meeting was set for Jan 11. Today, the CEO and president retired/were forced out - and the stock went up 19%. Bloomberg's spin: "The top two officials at SFBC International Inc., the drug testing company at the center of a U.S. Senate probe, quit after investigators sought to interview them." While strictly true - January 3rd is after November 18th, and any time Grassley wants to meet with someone it could be called a probe - it seems kind of dodgy. Is Bloomberg always this slanted?
  2. Choad


    I got nailed on a few SFCC trades last year.

    Did okay on some, but got crushed on others.

    Too dam volatile for me... :(
  3. Speaking of volatile, look at Friday's action. Another negative article came out in Bloomberg (Grassley requests documents). Stock dropped $3.90 (15%) in 4 minutes on volume of 330K, then rose $2.94 in 3 minutes on volume of 220K. Volume for the day was 2 million, which this stock sees about 1 day in 5, and it occasionally has 40K+ volume minutes even on normal days. For volume that was not truly unusual, the dip sure was.
  4. Is anyone able to short that ?
  5. Huge short interest in the stock and they dodged numbers
  6. 1000


    No, your just missing the point. Looks like your only picking, and not following the whole story from the start.