I don't think that it's disturbing at all, I think it's quite naive to think that these kind of services wouldn't be in constant communication with the companies that they are recommending in order to get the most accurate/privileged information possible, as wrong as that objectively may be. If i recall correctly, PPP recommended AVQ a day or two before the company announced that it was holding information sessions with the government regarding Isabel, which subsequently lead to a reasonably significant rerate. I don't think that was a coincidence and IMO this was a result of communication with the company given the nature of the announcement and its arbitrary timing following the stakeholder engagement sessions.
Having worked in finance I unfortunately know that these types of relationships are mutually beneficial as the service can reduce information asymmetry issues between the company and investors, especially where information isn't definitive enough to make an announcement (such as with Isabel), while the company can offer the service a competitive edge over retail investors by providing information not otherwise available. For the record I'm not suggesting this has to be sensitive information.
Therefore it makes sense to me to follow PPP's recommendation as it's likely that they've been in closer contact with the company than any of us. The writer has seriously put his and PPP's reputation on the line and i doubt that he has done that without any external reassurance, the most obvious of which would be the company. For the record I am biased because i have been invested in AVQ long before PPP's recommendation, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I personally think we have good news coming.
AVQ Price at posting:
24.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
