[tyleo]

I agree with this point. It isn’t the case that WSB interest disqualifies the viability of financial information… but it also doesn’t make it more credible.

The point I disagree with (and I think the original post is making) is just because an unpopular group (WSB) is interested in something, doesn’t discredit it.

[this_user]

> The point I disagree with (and I think the original post is making) is just because an unpopular group (WSB) is interested in something, doesn’t discredit it.

If that groups has consistently been wrong about everything for two years, then it absolutely does. It's like Jim Cramer: If he states something, there is at least a 90% chance that the opposite will happen.

[rcarr]

They’re at 60% of the float locked up with DRS now. Once they get to 100% then the true measure of whether they were right or wrong can be ascertained.

[qwytw]

> there is at least a 90% chance that the opposite will happen.

That'd be cool. You could make a lot of money. Unfortunately he's probably closer to 50%.