the catch-22 of the (esg) downramper

Those who want to post on a stock need to have a reason to do so. For most people, that is because they are shareholders. As such, their interest and positive sentiment in the stock aligns. Or when they stop being positive about a stock, they sell, and hence stop commenting. 1,000s of companies I could comment on, many of them negatively. But why would I, unless I have an interest in doing so?

So here is the Catch-22 - if you want to post negatively on a company on HC (for trading or shorting or corporate reasons), you have to maintain just enough positivity to legitimise why you are here and hold the stock, whilst maintaining an overwhelmingly negative sentiment.

It is a very fine line.

- Too much negativity and no reason to hold means people see through the agenda. This undermines the effectiveness of the posting. (this is the most common error).

- Too much positivity from the downramper and it defeats the purpose of being on HC to negatively affect sentiment. You don't want to talk the prospects of the company up, after all!

This is the Catch-22 that downrampers are stuck in - being on HC in order to dampen enthusiasm, create doubt or contradict the ESG supporters; and yet needing to be just positive enough such that it legitimises the reason for remaining a shareholder.

Some examples of walking this very fine line:

- I think the resource is valuable, but I have grave concerns about management's ability to deliver.
- I think the resource is valuable, but don't think anything will happen for many years (hence, why would anyone buy NOW?)
- I think a takeover is coming, but it will be at such a modest premium that it is hardly worth the trouble hanging around for.
- I bought at the share price peak, and hence have reason to be negative.
- the value is there, but the share price is so controlled that the value will never be realised.
- Santos is interested in ESG, but has ESG in its grip.

Recognise any of this behaviour in any posters? It is the Catch-22 of those who are charged with sewing the seeds of doubt - cast doubt, express concerns, but keep just enough reason to hold such that it legitimises their continued interest.

We all know that, however negative some posters are, they cannot walk away. So perhaps keep that in mind when reading their posts. They are still here. And they have to keep just a smidge of reason to legitimise their presence.

------------------------------------------------------------

I love HC. It is a source of a lot of information and stimulating debate. But it is naive to think, given the reach of HC, that there is no corporate involvement through third parties. The site is after all, free. As such, it is not solely the domain of retail investors. Especially when it involves takeover targets. There are millions of dollars to be saved, even if the share price can be affected by just one cent.

In fact, in the case of ESG, one cent equates to 10 million dollars saved.
Now, don't you think that is worth the effort?

Companies use traditional media like newspapers to their advantage. And some use new media to their advantage also. Ask youself - how much time do you spend reading HC, compared with print media?

Santos, is very aware of the influence of HC. Have a look at the imbedded FNN videos posted on the Santos side - who do you think pays for these? Evidence that a company is well aware of the influence of HC as a medium.


Yaq