[jpgvm]

They hunt for true fraud and they make their living off of being right often enough that their reports move the market.

If they weren't right often enough they would be ignored so they are incentivised to only publish when they think the odds are in their favor.

Ultimately they do good for the market, it sucks to be the people that invested before the reports land but chances are they protect more investors by outing fraud as soon as possible before it can get larger.

[sonicanatidae]

>If they weren't right often enough they would be ignored so they are incentivised to only publish when they think the odds are in their favor.

I disagree with this. This implies clear vision and we all know the very last thing a corporation will ever provide is clear vision. There is little difference a pump/dump and these people. Both are marketing ploys to allow them to make money.

[ethbr1]

If a stock tanks because a report reveals the company was cooking the books, that's good for the market and the economy as a whole.

That stock was sucking up investment that, rationally, should have instead been invested in other companies.

[sonicanatidae]

>If a stock tanks because a report reveals the company was cooking the books, that's good for the market and the economy as a whole.

How about when a stock tanks because a report was wrong, or a report was specifically crafted to imply all kinds of things, just to tank the stock price. Im sure that would be an honest mistake, that they just happen to make millions from. Whoopsie. smh.

I get the relationship between negative facts and a healthier stock market, but is anyone here naive enough to believe humans play things like massive mountains of money, honestly? rofl..

GL with that.

[ethbr1]

What's the opposite side of that though?

That corporate leadership are always paragons of transparency and announce all details accurately, so that business-as-usual markets can correctly price the stock?

Corporate press releases are explicitly crafted to benefit the stock price.

If the content of a negative third party report is accurate, then its intent doesn't matter.

If corporate leadership has a rebuttal, they're welcome to share!

If the content of a third party report is inaccurate, then the company is welcome to sue for libel, I assume?

[sonicanatidae]

>What's the opposite side of that though?

The opposite doesn't exist, generally, because humans are still involved.

[ethbr1]

The opposite is whatever pro-company positions are publicized, in order to increase the stock price.

Are you saying corporate PR isn't a thing? Or that quarterly earnings presentations aren't carefully written?

[baq]

That’s how they fund their research, otherwise this would be private and closely guarded information available only to people with deep pockets. There is quite enough of such establishments in the market on the long side.