Can you trust the Stocklemon? Part 4

Well, I confirmed a bit more about Andrew Left of StockLemon (noted short seller and basher of bad microcap companies). He (or someone with the exact same name who lives in the same county, not likely) was convicted (in a civil case) of theft by double-cashing a check. I downloaded the original documents from the LA Superior Court website (case #bc269050). Since I am too lazy to put them up, you can see a copy of the writ of execution on the horrid StockLemon bashing site StockLemonAide.

Of course, when it comes down to it, you shouldn’t trust anyone, except maybe your mother (although don’t trust her for stock picks!). You shouldn’t even automatically trust me (although I am trustworthy). When it comes to investing especially, no one acts in a completely disinterested fashion. The kind of losers that praise a company such as HSOA on Yahoo’s message boards are long (or short) the stock and only want to pump (or deflate) it. Management of most every company wants to pump their company–sometimes this is just dumb, such as with CRMT or WHI, two stocks where I suffered losses after I trusted some bad management predictions–and sometimes this is fraudulent, such as in the case of Enron or Xybernaut. Short sellers (such as StockLemon) will try to bash a stock to get it to go lower.

The problem is that we cannot trust anyone. We need to verify the facts. Sometimes it will turn out that a company that looks to be failing or fraudulent will turn out to be a good company. Sometimes the short seller bashing the stock will turn out to be right (such as with Chanos and Enron or Andrew Left and GTX Global). What matters is the facts. Ironically, people like Andrew Left actually benefit the rubes that invest in fraudulent (or just bad) companies by ending the companies’ lives before they can obtain more money from investors.

See the previous posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Disclosure: I am no longer long CRMT or WHI. I have no position in any other stocks mentioned. See my disclosure policy.

16 thoughts on “Can you trust the Stocklemon? Part 4”

  1. I generally agree with what you have said about stocklemon. I have been following their site for over two years. I am a professional investor, CPA and former corporate CFO. My conclusions:
    -Probably not altruistic in motivations. I agree with you- they would be honest if they posted their positions, but I just assume that everyone has a position on the side of their argument unless otherwise stated.
    – Many of the companies profiled are dogs.
    – They are not always right about a company, but they are right much more than they are wrong.
    -Many of the companies profiled can not be shorted (I’ve tried) so it is not simply a dump on to short site.
    -It is wise to consider what is posted on Stocklemon.
    -They often target companies that are major promoters with serial press releases that are hype. These follow the same pattern of releases that include vague transactions or “strategic alliances” (hah!).

  2. I note in Part 1 that Left is mentioned in conjuntion with Manuela Assensio.
    Manny is a true dirtbag. He was arrested on the grounds of a company called Polymedica (PLMD) aka Liberty Medical (Wilfred Brimley does their ads) trying ot gather dirt on the company. PLMD was later acquired by Merck fot $53/share.
    Furthermore Assensio, a broker dealer once testified and a SEC hearing that he did not know the name of his only employee. Manny lost his broker dealer license.

    We’re talking a couple of major league scum in Left an Assensio

  3. Steve — you didn’t note that. Left is not connected to Asensio any more than I am. Furthermore, I cannot find any evidence that Asensio was actually convicted of any crime in the PLMD sleuthing incident. He was questioned by police after Polymedica complained:

    Asensio losing his broker-dealer license was due to the rather mundane flaw of misrepresenting (in a relatively minor way) the performance of his short picks.

  4. So what about the latest Citron “Research”? He called URME a bullshit stock pump in 2007 and now it’s AMEX listed and in production. Left is a fool at best.

  5. Michael,

    Actually I think the AMEX listing must have come as a shock to Andrew and proves he was wrong in 2007 just as he is now.

    In regards to UEC, Andrew’s recent article is intentionally misleading. His piece actually does not make sense and shows he does not understand what he is talking about. The obvious goal of his article is create doubt to manipulate the stock downward. He doesn’t shed light on anything fundamental. Why does the SEC allow this obvious manipulation?

    Some things to consider when reading Andrew Left’s analysis of UEC
    • UEC went into production in November.

    • Chairman Alan Lindsay has been involved with many more companies than mentioned in the article. Except for UEC, Andrew conveniently only mentions the ones that he feels he can skew in an attempt to undermine Mr. Lindsay’s career.

    • It appears Amir Adnani has done a marvelous job as the CEO of UEC. What specifically bothers Andrew Left about Mr. Adnani’s professional abilities and Management? It’s clear he does not like the fact that Adnani married Mr. Lindsay’s daughter. So what?

    • Why should a Texan uranium company not be listed in Frankfurt? Why does that make it a scam? Does it not make sense to be listed there if you want European investors to have exposure to it. Is he suggesting companies are only worthwhile if they trade in the USA exclusively?

    • Andrew suggests that since Haywood Securities does not have an office in the USA it must be substandard. I do not know if Haywood Securities does or does not have an office in the USA, but why would not having a physical office in the USA make it a questionable firm? Haywood Securities has been very prolific in the mining business. It is actually the shenanigans of American financial firms that make investors feel uneasy.

    • As of July UEC had 21 million in cash and in November raised 27.5 million at 3.40 when it was trading just above that price. He calls it “dilutive”. “Remarkable” would be more fitting no? Answer these questions for yourself: How many exploration companies go into production with zero debt? Is Andrew qualified to even write about mining?

    • CIBC just raised the price target to 7.40 /share from 4.70.

    • UEC is the fifth largest holding in the Global X Uranium ETF (URA)

    • UEC has recognized institutional shareholders

    • UEC has gone from exploration to production in 7 years.

    • UEC reports to NI 43-101 recognized industry standards. His comparison to URRE is dumb. UEC is in production (which puts the company in a unique camp) and URRE resources have not been verified. So for the convenience of the article Mr. Left chooses to go out on a limb and just believe what URRE is claiming with no independent audit to support the resource? Does this sounds like he does not know what he is talking about and/or he is intentionally misleading readers and investors?

    • Andrew posted a link to an article that to him ends the argument of a potential shortfall in supply in U3o8. Interestingly In this article is the following,

    “Even in the high-growth scenario to 2035, less than half of the identified resources described in this edition would be consumed. The challenge remains to develop mines in a timely and environmentally sustainable fashion as uranium demand increases. A strong market will be required for these resources to be developed within the time frame required to meet future uranium demand.” I think the uranium industry is a tad more dynamic than Andrew makes out.

    • Got to love this line: “Without Goliad- it is a quick death. With Goliad it can be a slow bleed — you decide.” – Nice use of drama but what does it mean? Is he getting his logic from a famous U2 song?

    This article is nothing but attempted manipulation by misleading the public, well timed with a correction after a big rally in almost all uranium names. I would guess there were a few short positions that were caught on the wrong side when UEC, and many other uranium names ran.


  6. I’m not trying to convince you to buy the stock just the facts that

    1. Left has very limited knowledge on the mining industry
    2. he reports with an agenda, not merely the truth like he pretends.

  7. So the answer is, no you can’t trust him – especially when it comes to the resource industry. Therefore he as bad as anyone that spreads lies on the internet.

  8. Henry I’m sure you’re just a neutral observer and have no position in UEC that you’re trying to defend………..

  9. I thought what you said was balanced Michael, however Henry appears determined to defend a stock and claim that other people have alterior motives wrt a stock.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the formula below to prove that you are human * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.