So what if they are? Anyone who is holding is by definition 'only waiting for the price to rise so they can sell out'. Every holder plans to sell one day otherwise what would be the point?
The implication is that negative posts are made to 'encourage' people to sell out, and thus cause a fall in price.
But in my experience, far more dangerous are those who post positively, 'encouraging' others to buy in at overinflated prices. These people are then left sitting on losses a few days/weeks down the line when the price falls back to a more appropriate level.
Who holds the moral high ground- those who would get those to buy in when a share is overpriced in the hope of being able to offload their shares to those people, or those who encourage current holders to sell out so they can take their shares?
I'd say they're both identical- in both cases, you're trying to profit off someone else.
The 'positive' posts are by far the most dangerous though, as they usually heavily outweigh the negative posts, so a balance between views is not achieved. Furthermore, it's human nature to want to look positively at something, and it's far easier to trick neutral people into a 'hype' wave, than it is to get current holders (who by and large, will have a 'positive' outlook- or else why would they hold?) to start thinking negatively about their investment.
RRS Price at posting:
14.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
