US contracts, page-49

I wrote this in another subforum, but I was thinking about that stock (also under shorters' attack) and NEA when I wrote it.

Because I would not sell a stock that I liked and buy it soon afterwards at loosely the same price, I have never understood how institutions can in their best interest sell millions of shares at below intrinsic values that they believe are apt. I can now think of a reason to explain that aspect of institutional investors' behaviour.

Accounting for capital-gain events requires the cost of shares sold to be allocated in the sequence of the acquisition dates. Institutions have a marketing interest to window-dress their results each year to get he bragging rights to promote their Funds Under Management (FUM). Now if one adds to that motivating factor the matter of paying somebody to write a negative report to frighten the lemmings, and the institutions can themselves put out a good-news story to send the SP upward later, it all makes good sense.

There is not a single stock that does not have some bad points that one could harp on, to the exclusion of good points. Writing a negative opinion piece need not contain lies, all it has to do is not mention inconvenient truths.