|
Crip, I see where you are coming from and I share your sentiment. This is a complicated issue. Can a man like Cramer move the market? How about annonymous web postings? Do all the lies have to be in the same direction or, if made by different parties, would they usually cancel each other out? These are questions I don't have the answer for. Basically, the way I understand it, in our society we have a freedom of speech model. The idea is that a politician can get away with saying something that is not 100% accurate or, even if 100% accurate, misleading. Generally, we do not prosecute people for lying to their spouses even over something like adultery. And one is free to claim that one thinks a stock or even the market overall will go up, even if the facts or logic one relies on is very dubious. There is no requirement one have a certain IQ threshold etc for making such a claim. I don't know what to make of Cramer on Youtube. I thought it was partly said in jest. Someone on the site quoted Buffett to the effect that "if you don't kick a man when he is down, when are you going to kick him?". For the man who was quoting Warren, it seemed like this was how Berkshire had been built. I thought the quote was taken out of context, basically Warren was joking. But I am no expert. The other question is: What is manipulation? Was the CEO's comments about store size etc useful scuttlebutt or pure disinformation? Where does one draw the distinction? I don't think anyone has given me a definition of manipulation. I guess it is a little like porn, easier to recgnize than to define. There was a guy on this site recently who, it seemed, didn't want an honest discussion of the weather because he was hoping to buy more FFH if there was a bad huricane season. I thought that was very manipulative. The same as those who try to suppress other information e.g. private placements etc. I think of myself as a value investor. And I think value investing works in 2 scenerios: 1) emotional market that over-reacts on upside or downside e.g. internet boom, 9/11, Thailand 6 months ago etc and 2) flawed analysis or incorrect facts. The latter is mainly a micro story re: a particular stock. To try and police who on the net is honest and which information is correct is impossible in practice and, if it could be done, would make value investing of type 2) impossible. Value investing owes its very existence and success to inaccurate information or incorrect analysis. I may be naive, but I think in the long run honesty pays. Had Warren tried to manipulate the market by saying things to alternatively drive the market - or an individual stock - up or down, he would have had reputational risk if he had succeeded. If he had been taking an investment stance that was objectively "wrong" he would have been taking an investment risk as well. To summarize, there are three issues: 1) information/analysis that is sincere and correct 2) information/analysis that is not 3) freedom of opinion Because I think 3) is so important, I would rather see people "vote with their feet" and simply choose not to purchase from the incompetent and/or dishonest providers. That, imo, would be a much better solution than trying to regulate distinctions between 1) and 2).
|