This article lacks the evidence to warrant the boldness of its arguments. And after reading through the paragraphs of poorly based assertions, I see this at the bottom of the article. Why am I not surprised?
I am under no impression that my articles can move fucking Samsung's stock. That's hilarious you think I could profit off the market by writing this.
There's plenty of evidence though. Be an industry insider and you'd recognize it all.
I do know that my reports have moved smaller companies stocks by 20% in a single day, and have been verified true in the past. - https://semianalysis.com/short-report-nvidia-supplier-cut-ou...
If I thought I could move the stock, I'd make the position in the morning alongside my clients, and publish shortly after, like I did with the article I just linked.
> I do know that my reports have moved smaller companies stocks by 20% in a single day
seems like a weird contradiction. you really think a disclaimer can protect you here? Like many of us pointed out, you've made quite a bold, unsubstantiated claims with poorly cited evidence. You've admitted that your writing in the past have moved the targeted company's stock.
> If I thought I could move the stock, I'd make the position in the morning alongside my clients
I'm sure you could but writing a piece like this, without substantial evidence, I think could influence investors opinions and you've admitted that your writings in the past have moved stocks negatively.
> There's plenty of evidence though. Be an industry insider and you'd recognize it all.
so where are the evidence that support your claims?
The cultural issues being the cause of these issues is the substantial claim.
A big part of Samsung's success is because of their insanely powerful and effective legal department. There's just no way their attorneys aren't reading semianalysis.