You don't like someone giving it back, do you Alex? Seems you can give it, but you're not very good at taking it. I didn't mean to make you angry though - please forgive me. Why not have a word with a friend - he or she might be able to help you take on someone like me, who isn't put off by your attempts to discredit me (you can't) and your constant presentation of sketchy information presented out of context as having meaning so that you can achieve your purpose of putting people off SGH. Just to make it fair, I'll drop down a few levels for a while to give you a chance to recover.
I'm intrigued you think I've been constantly wrong, Alex. Wrong on what? Please tell us. How can someone be wrong while the game's still in progress? Your logic is analogous to that of one of those footballers (I don't know how clever footballers are in Oz, but they're no 'Einsteins' where I come from so it's a reasonable analogy) who jumps on top of a human pyramid of sweating manhood with tattoos, in shorts and earrings, that is the statutory celebration for a player scoring a goal and takes 7 minutes to break up - then his team goes on to lose 6-1.
And you say I am a blatant ramper? Where is your evidence, Alex - point us to a single instance of me overstating SGH's situation and prospects? I've said what
has to happen plenty of times, not that it
will happen. I am on solid ground when it comes to audit reports however. It amazes me that so many people who haven't got a clue about the meaning of any of it should publicly - albeit hiding behind a nom de plume - challenge someone who did it so long for a living in the firm he did. There's an old saying: "better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and prove it". This has some application here.
Point us to any post where I have suggested anyone should buy (or sell) SGH shares. I am not an investment advisor and never tell other people what to do with their money. I am required by HC to record my sentiment on the shares and I have truthfully done this. It has changed from time to time to reflect times when I have been buying and times when I haven't.
Anyway - I don't want to go on as there's really no point. I see you are slowly changing your stance on SGH - as some people do when it becomes clear that what they have been so doggedly maintaining over a long period progressively turns out to be wrong. This change of stance sometimes involves the relevant people using what knowledge they possess to record their (what are supposed to come across as) wise and constructive thoughts about a set of circumstances that have changed (they're unlikely to have changed much at all - the circumstances have just been wildly exaggerated by people who thought this would benefit them in some way). You do have some knowledge I'll grant you, Alex, because you're working the above approach well. There's another saying: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", so please be careful.
Summing up, Alex, your whole premise in claiming you have called this right all along, while people who have decided to go (or remain) long have been wrong (and still are wrong, as I see your sentiment is still 'sell'), is the performance of the share price. Many investors don't react to short or even medium-term price fluctuations. In SGH's case the share price has been adversely affected to an almost unprecedented extent by repeated shorting in huge volume. If this is not price manipulation, then I don't know what is. If SGH resumes anything like normal trading after what's happened over the last 6 months and the performance of its share price does not become the subject of a detailed investigation by the appropriate regulatory bodies to see what went on, then they might as well pack up and save everyone the money. Sometimes short interest is reflective of underlying problems in a company that the public is unaware of. In this case the problems became obvious quite quickly and a lot of the shorting activity followed thereafter.
Regardless, I don't have a problem with shorting - as long as the beneficial owners of the shares know what's being done with their shares and have given their consent. This doesn't usually happen, however. People who are long here and have been buying, maybe partly to counter the continuing decline of the share price, won't have known that money they invested in pension funds/institutions might subsequently have been used to buy SGH shares and then held in a balanced unit trust managed by that institution. These shares may have been to an investment bank or a hedge fund which subsequently went short of the stock. In these circumstances, their own shares will effectively have been used as a weapon against them without their knowledge or consent. That seems wrong to me, although evidently not to governments and regulators. I can tell you why - but not today.
Remind me to tell you about patents, Alex. Owning these even beats accountancy, Royalties come in when you're asleep too
