Concerning anonymous short sellers

Forum rules
- Comments must be civil and on topic
- Back up claims with evidence/reasoning/sources (posting links is allowed)
- No commercials/harassment/spam
Post Reply
sargasso
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:49 pm

Concerning anonymous short sellers

Post by sargasso » Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:25 pm

November 27, 2017

"In recent years, anonymous online hit pieces against public companies have become an increasingly common and effective form of short activism. Given their success in driving down stock prices, anonymous online short campaigns are likely here to stay. Anonymous online short attacks pose unique challenges to public companies. In order to defend successfully against anonymous online short attacks, public companies must have ready-to-execute plans in place—whether or not an online short attack appears imminent.

The inherent anonymity of the internet exacerbates these challenges. As long as online short activists have access to the internet, they can theoretically launch a short attack that reaches millions of investors from anywhere at any time—and with little accountability.

Anonymous online attacks can have an immediate negative impact on a target company’s stock price and generate market momentum for prolonged periods of time—or, at the very least, trigger serious stock volatility."

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/11 ... t-attacks/

sargasso
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Concerning anonymous short sellers

Post by sargasso » Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:29 pm

Concerning the role of SA in featuring such articles.
Concerning Alpha Exposure articles on SA:

November 27, 2017

“Eros International PLc (“Eros”), an Indian-based Bollywood filmmaker, has been the subject of short attacks since 2015. For example, Alpha Exposure, an anonymous short seller that primarily publishes its research on Seeking Alpha and Twitter, first targeted Eros on October 30 and November 10, 2015. Alpha Exposure accused the company of, among other things, pervasive accounting fraud and questionable related-party transactions. [13] In response, the company issued a press release denying Alpha Exposure’s allegations on November 12, 2015. [14]

Alpha Exposure’s allegations gained momentum, prompting attacks from other short sellers and causing at least one investor to publicly demand that the company overhaul its board and improve corporate governance. Despite the company’s efforts, short sellers have continued their attack throughout 2017, with Alpha Exposure most recently releasing a short report on August 14, 2017, claiming that the company is facing bankruptcy. [15] On October 3, 2017, Eros sued a number of hedge funds and anonymous short sellers under the name “John Doe” for trade libel, defamation, and civil conspiracy, among other claims. Eros announced that “the filing of th[e] lawsuit marks another important step in Eros’ vigorous defense of itself and the company’s stakeholders.” [16] Since October 2015, Eros shares have fallen approximately 50%.

Online short sellers often post articles and research from a crowdsourcing research platform, such as Seeking Alpha or Scribd, that they consider “home.” These platforms offer ready-made audiences that short activists can reach immediately upon posting an article, and have become sources of financial information for institutional and individual investors alike.
Alpha Exposure has approximately 1,800 followers on Seeking Alpha, and has launched approximately 25 short campaigns with an average campaign return of -33.90%.

Anonymous short attacks have the ability to cripple the stock price of a public company—whether large or small—or, at the very least, cause stock volatility for months or even years. This is particularly true as certain anonymous short sellers, such as Alpha Exposure and The Pump Stopper, gain legitimacy with established short campaign “track records” and broader followings, enabling them to more easily move the market and undermine investor confidence. As anonymous short campaigns become both more common and more effective, public companies should have a defense plan in place and must be prepared to react immediately.”

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/11 ... t-attacks/

sargasso
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Concerning anonymous short sellers

Post by sargasso » Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:43 pm

Once again, SA published today a completing manipulative and utterly misleading article on GERN by a notorious short seller, and SA quite recently designated one such attack on GERN by the same short seller an “Editors Pick.” By featuring such articles SA greatly undermines its own credibility.

Fishermangents
Site Admin
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Concerning anonymous short sellers

Post by Fishermangents » Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:12 pm

One of the measures a company can take is making sure that there is enough cash on board to bridge to success. So far Geron has anticipated to that. Suing manipulative short attacks is risky, as the shorters may use that to prove there is really something wrong. However, SEC should be able to step up in such cases.

sargasso
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Concerning anonymous short sellers

Post by sargasso » Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:50 pm

Repost from YMB:

sdrawkcabeman
3.22.2018

I had a good chuckle reading the Alpha Exposure’s short apologetics.

I hope he reads this. He asks why pts in the trial are limited to 10% blasts and 75,000/ul platelet count. Here’s why. Blasts greater than 10% is an artifact pointing towards AML, as is also severely low platelet count. We already know Imet doesn’t work as a single agent in AML, so why on Earth would you select for pts presenting AML-like conditions? Also, cytopenias are one of the adverse effects of Imet, and they occur b/c Imet is destroying the proliferating cancer cells. So why would you put pts with very low platelet counts on a drug that could press thrombocytopenia even further? By the way, all adverse events on Imet are reversible by simple dose and schedule modification.

Either Alpha Exposure has no idea what he’s talking about, or he’s a short seller standing on the edge of a very tall cliff.

Here’s another knee-slapper of Alpha Exposure’s. He asks why very sickly pts with ECOG over 2 are excluded. Well, let me explain. ECOG 2 doesn’t mean those pts are healthy. ECOG 2 patients can be extremely sick, but still capable of walking. We are talking about R/R pts, after all. In fact, ECOG isn’t an actual metric of health at all. It’s a GENERALIZED system of categorizing the state of the diseased patient, with ANY disease. How far does a generalized system go towards relevance in SPECIFIC diseases? THAT’S Alpha Exposure’s red flag? Seriously? ECOG? Laughable.

Imbark is geared towards MF pts R/R to Rux, inter alia. The trial is designed to help THOSE people, not all “ECOG 3” pts, not AML pts, not hepatitis pts, not people with sinus infections.

And the lower dose arm pts having OS benefit doesn’t detract from Imet’s efficacy. I laughed out loud at that one. Also, the 4.7 group isn’t a good placebo b/c obviously placebos should be an inert oligo... not the actual experimental drug.

Lastly, Alpha Exposure doesn’t seem to understand what a median means. He wrote, “Because the median platelet count in the paper was so close to the allowed lower bound in the IMbark trial, a substantial portion of the patients followed in the MD Anderson paper would have been ineligible for Imbark.” In other words, a substantial portion of pts WOULD be eligible. This is getting long, so I’ll let Alpha Exposure figure that one out.

So... Alpha Exposure, looks like you’ll have to dig up something else besides ECOG. And you did realize this was a trial for R/R MF pts? Maybe you can look for what brand latex gloves they’re using at the clinical sites? Could that be the fatal flaw in Imbark’s design?

The OS signal is real. It’s unprecedented. It’s significant. Deal with it. Presenting a weak argument against Imet, despite the overwhelming strength of the data to date, across the total program, only makes Alpha Exposure look even more desperate. If there’s a legitimate problem with Imbark, you should have found something more significant than ECOG.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GERN/community?p=GERN

biopearl
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:12 am

Re: Concerning anonymous short sellers

Post by biopearl » Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:14 am

Sargasso, thank you for reposting this. I have found virtually all of Sdrawkcabeman's posts to be insightful and informed. Thank you also for sharing the articles that help in understanding the attempts of "shorts" in manipulating markets. We had an up day despite a significant down market. One would think a negative article written by an avowed short on a single SA message site wouldn't have much effect but apparently it did. I think its just a reflection of the heat those that have bet against Geron are feeling. I suppose its just part of investing by people generally pretty sophisticated in the area of hedge funds and so on. Fortunately most here are genuinely interested in the science, many for personal reasons. bp

Post Reply