Blatant Manipulation

[j.coolaid]

Some argue that institutions will take profit after the deal, but why would they? It's more likely that with uncertainty largely removed and wheels of monetization and accelerated exploration set in motion, more funds will buy in, especially after FID and more broker coverage. All this will significantly shift the risk-reward of shorting, depending on the terms of the deal even dramatically so. There isn't much, if any reason for them to stick around for the shorts. Big funds will buy-in more and more, the closer we come to first cash-flow and the more success we have on the exploration front and/or closing other deals like the one with PRE. The terms of the deal itself could awaken a lot of people to the blatant undervaluation and upward potential, both on the monetization and exploration side. Even a $1/mcf deal with some upfront capital removes most risk and set this in motion, and is twice the present market valuation at least. Shorting is not exactly risk or cost free, and both the cost and the risk will move up significantly after a deal. Let's keep it real here. Let's also not forget that naked shorting is illegal, and if it were that easy, why did they borrow 10M+ shares in the first place. Let's not fall for this crap that we could never win from these motherfuckers, this is something Tonka would argue and I've long suspected it would be the last short "argument" standing. In the end, the shorts want to make money, that will become that much harder and more risky after a deal, almost any deal, as it sets the wheels in motion towards monetization and accelerated exploration and removes most uncertainty and the room for them to come up with BS stories.

Lib, it's simply like this. Whatever one has against Mulacek, he's a guy that has build a business from scratch, and in the process created benefits for a good many others, not in the least PNG. This is how capitalism is supposed to work. It's Adam Smith's invisible hand, acting in one's self-interest coincides with the common good. This is the creating type of capitalism I ardently support.            both your comment and the response I read are spot on ....we definitely think much the same on this issue and perhaps others I'd bet...

Unfortunately it doesn't always work like that.

But these short funds engage simply in a form of redistribution. They don't produce any benefits to society at large, only to themselves and most likely at the cost of smaller shareholders. In fact, insofar as they frustrate people like Mulacek and make it more difficult, they detract for societal welfare. Insofar as they engage in their activities in a semi-legal way (spreading BS stories, shorting nakedly, etc.), the detract much more. They undermine our trust in valuable institutions like our capital markets. Thereby, they make it more difficult for companies like InterOil to get funded. They could even undermine our believe in public institutions, insofar as these are unable or unwilling to deal with these practices, and their success, raking in vast sums of money, they further exhort a corrosive influence on society, as others will follow. This is the rent-seeking, redistributive type of capitalism I abhor.

That could be post of the year in my book. " border="0" class="smilie" src="http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/images/smilies/lightbulb.gif" />

Naked shorting and other forms of capital destruction go far beyond what they have done to IOC, Phil and their shareholders. I wonder how many human beings have suffered or died because naked shorting criminals have destroyed medical-based startups with promising treatments, drugs, or therapies. We will never know.