It was good to get that post up on the blog, because it shows just how full of shit Louis James of Casey Research really is. Lets check out the part of the rebuttal that comes from James's hand once again:
1] We said right at the top of the IS write up that CIA subs had bought earlier.
2] The company had major, value-adding news just before the CIA rec (huge resource increase) that accounts for the volume the writer finds so suspicious. It would have been beyond bizzarre if there had not been high volume then.
3] The company had major, value-adding news between recs that drove the price up (very favorable metallurgy). Ditto as above.
4] Many CIA recs never make it to IS.
5] IS regularly gets recs that were never mentioned in CIA.
6] It is, in fact, almost always the case that stocks pull back after sharp spikes upwards. There were plenty of people who could see our Buy as an exit opportunity -- everyone non-CR who bought before the CIA rec, for example.
I do not believe there is any honest way the author of those remarks could have missed the news that accounts for the share price action. It looks to me like plain and simple maliciousness
Now, some of this is clearly subjective, as one man's maliciousness is another man's striving for the truth. There's also the way that this James guy gratuitously throws the word "honest" into his accusations when he's already been shown by other third parties to be one of the worst fudgers of his own stockpicking 'prowess' out there and tries his very hardest to cover up his bad calls. Also, there are debatable issues with some points because you could argue that all James is saying is that (point 1) "we're allowed to let richer subbers frontrun because we told everyone that they're getting the chance to frontrun" and also (point 4) "our consciences are clean because we only throw them these trading breaks some of the time and not all of the time". But hey, like I say these things are up for debate.
What's NOT up for debate however, is the way Louis James uses easily refutable bullshit to justify his actions. Part two of his counterargument tries to make out that the big volume spike seen on March 26th was due to the huge resource increase reported by ANM.v. Unfortunately for Louis James he picked the wrong month, because the news of that increase came out on February 26th, a full month before the volume spike caused, undoubtedly, by the Casey "A-List" recommendation on March 26th. This chart shows how the story pans out:
been telling lies in order to cover his tracks, David?
We await an answer.