Regarding your comments on the short defense, I am surprised you did not consider that the criticisms you make are also applicable to the short report. You are scathing in your attacks on NAK, yet, you overlook the flaws in the short attack. Do I need to point out to you the obvious disconnect ? I understand the shorts, they stand to make enormous profits. NAK, is of course, defending themselves. What is your interest? I believe you wish to appear independent and unbiased. This string of reports puts you firmly in the short camp. This recent post has damaged your creditability with me. You do not appear to be objective, or intellectually honest. What is your interest in this matter, and how are you being compensated? How do you justify accepting the short report at face value and dismissing the defense out of hand? The short report writers are totally unqualified and do not appear to have any professionals in place. TD has much more credibility that some unknown short seller. I acknowledge they both have money at stake, but I believe TD is more credible. As always, sell side analysis must be taken with a grain of salt.If you are serious, and intellectually honest,I believe a fair and calm rebuttal of these points is required. If you choose not to, than it leaves me with the impression that you are no different that other scam artists and snake oil salesman that pollute the internet.This biased stand on NAK has led me to doubt the objectivity of your posts in general. I have been enjoying reading your work and it has often proved interesting. Thank you for addressing my concerns.
Disclosure: No position at all in NAK.