[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?