I think the advantage we have over short sellers is a long term...

I think the advantage we have over short sellers is a long term outlook. Or, at least, we don't have a short term outlook! We don't need to sell, and we believe in the company long term. Shorting involves costs for each day the short position is ongoing. If l held a heavy short position on a p/e 10 agriculture company which reported a solid first half result, I wouldn't be feeling too confident today.

People aren't going to stop eating salmon and prawns. Demand will only increase as population grows. Meanwhile, we enjoy the luxury of a healthy dividend and a clear pathway to growth from a company with a solid track record.

We don't need to do a thing except for holding, re-investing dividends, and perhaps topping up if the price weakens towards $3.00. I see very little risk for the buy-and-hold investor. The risk is with the shorters. Say TGR drops to the dreaded $3.00. It's a only ten percent drop (gain) for shorters.

Short sellers carry the real risk. They're punting that the share price will decrease in the short term. I wouldn't like to have big money bet against TGR. I'd feel much more confident as a long term holder. A contributor on Limewire was making a similar point yesterday.

In fact, we can both be correct. Maybe they're right. In which case the shorters will make some short term profit. But we will average down at a hypothetical $3.00 and profit on the inevitable way up. Our (shorters and long term holders) positions don't need to be mutually exclusive!