the billion $ question http://www.bloomberg.com/video/how-...-the-stock-market-dULC2K9BRLqataW~pqTM_A.html
I'm not sure what you mean by "call something". To be clear, the three sentences from my previous post that you quoted were from Gotham Research. I was merely reporting their thoughts and didn't actively agree or disagree with their statements. It's possible that Muddy Waters could be trying to get some PR with another report. But they could also believe what they wrote. It's also possible that some parts of their research reports are accurate. You haven't refuted any of the points they raised in either of their NQ research reports.
I'll assume that English is not your native language given the numerous spelling mistakes and poor grammar. Despite being difficult to understand I'll try my best to respond to your post. You've contradicted your earlier post. You defined manipulation as "try to use media/no envidence backed/hard fact backed things to influence people's decision", however Muddy Waters provided many pages of evidence to support their claims. Using your definition, Muddy Waters has not been manipulative. Regarding NBG, I recall the article's thesis was that the company was overvalued when compared to other Greek banks. You haven't refuted that argument. Likewise, you haven't explained how the article was "manipulation".
In this case it means to make a decision based on hearsay and not actual facts, which evidently a lot of traders - refer to NQ's chart for this week. I don't need to refute "beliefs" because beliefs are not facts. You can choose to believe the reports are accurate and legitimate or not. That's...your call. I have better things to do then participate in schoolgirl gossip.
What you've said above about Muddy Waters "beliefs are not facts" is interesting. I'm not sure why you've used the word 'amateur' to describe someone making a trading decision based on Muddy Waters' report. Most research reports contain opinions, and research reports by other firms are used by both professionals and amateurs to make trading decisions. Clearly it was incredibly profitable for professionals and amateurs alike to short NQ (even as low as 14) and then cover at a lower price. Some times the news (including research reports) itself doesn't matter, because the reaction to the news is more telling. Furthermore, some of Muddy Waters allegations (did you read both of their reports?) contain first hand accounts (facts) about the company. To use just one example, a third-party (Alipay) denying a business relationship with NQ, contradicting NQ's assertion that Alipay is business partner. While Muddy Waters may be wrong on some counts in their reports, the above is just one example of some damning facts in their report.
Who is muddy waters again? Oh, that's right, nobody. It's not a "belief" that they have failed to establish credibility or any type of legitimacy behind their claims, never mind the firm itself. If you're basing trading decisions on a report from one source with limited credibility, then yes, you are an amateur. Your fixation with this suggests you fall into this camp. And just to be clear, considering information from research firms and analysts is not equivalent to using that information as your "trigger" for entering or exiting a trade. NQ crashed from $25 to $8 because of the claims put forth by MW and the lawsuit. It's now back up to $14 and rising. Reactionary trades = amateur hour. There really is no such thing as a "professional" trader. You have varying degrees of traders, some more successful than others...the latter being the ones who don't make knee-jerk decisions. If you believe the reports are true in the first place, I guess this matters. I can write a document and claim it is a "first hand account", make it look authentic and then pay $200 to do a press release...we know for sure at least one person will believe it and act upon it. I'm going to start a research firm next week called "soiled trousers" and do a scathing report on some no-name foreign company with the ticker symbol DERP. I'll make sure to fabricate plenty of first-hand accounts so that you rest assured you only have "the facts". lol
OK, we've (finally) got to the heart of the matter. If successfully uncovering CCME, DGW, RINO, ONP and TRE is insufficient for you to think that Muddy Waters has credibility, then that's your choice. The aforementioned five successes is why the firm's reports have an effect on stock prices, and why your hypothetical "soiled trousers" does not. So on that count, there may not be anyone who would believe your report's content. Regardless, in the hours following the publication of the report, it doesn't matter whether or not the content of the report is true - many market participants choose to adhere to the 'sell now and ask questions later' adage. That the stock hasn't traded above 15 in the days since the report suggests there is plenty of residual concern about the reports' contents, despite NQ's attempt to defend itself since. Your assertion that successful traders don't make knee-jerk decisions could be true in some circumstances. But in the case of the NQ report, it didn't and doesn't apply. The best decision was clearly to make a knee-jerk decision to sell. Also, the Muddy Waters report was not necessarily the sole reason for the stock's decline. Plenty of people saw the massive volume in the stock, and that's all that was really needed to make a successful trade. Most people would rather prevent further losses in NQ, and/or successfully short the stock, rather than waiting to act just for the sake of claiming the moral higher ground.
I don't consider the ability to point out the obvious a hallmark of credibility. The companies named all exhibited suspicious traits, like calling themselves "industry leaders" when most have never heard of them...and delving deeper into readily available financial documents filed by said companies reveals plenty of WTF. The fact is that most traders don't care. They'll jump on for the ride and those who don't get burned get rich while the majority end up paying for it. How can you sit there and call my research firm hypothetical? I'm going to unload a press release right after I finish eating these bean burritos. You have to appreciate the irony in traders putting their money into obviously shady companies, some profiting from this, and then suddenly pulling out when someone puts the information that you had access to all along thru the prospectus into a press release. I don't think anyone cares about the report. The reluctance is basically traders thinking, "I'll buy if you buy...no you go first then I'll go." And that's why NQ is slowly coming back up. In a matter of days it went from 24, down to 7.56 and as we speak close to 15. If they cared about the report the rebound would be more gradual, in my opinion. The reactionary "panic sell" is evidence that people knew they shouldn't be putting their money into the underlying company in the first place. If you're investing you won't panic sell because you know that the company is going to bounce back. Not performing knee-jerk reactions is better in most situations, because successful traders aren't "gambling", hoping to get in and get out before a stock they know is bogus (or turn a blind eye to) crashes, as is the case with many penny stocks and stocks like NQ. All I have to say is if you're going to get involved with NQ it's better to do so through options than through direct ownership of the stock. The "get rich quick" mentality is a platform for failure.
Steve Cohen vs Muddy Waters with Big Money buying and selling their 7% stakes on a daily or weekly basis. Carson Block took on the analyst community with China's giant paper company in 2011, John Paulson's bet against Mr. Block's research costed Paulson's investors $850 Million dollars! Don't count Carson Block or Alfred Little out, those guys are good at smelling fraud!
curious who bought the NQ top today, anyone who bought 15+ is top buyer? stand out and report here, please, let's have some fun, so let you be shamed, next time you will not be a sucker anymore