Seeking Alpha

TheStreetSweeper shorts Universal Display, shares slump

  • TheStreetSweeper on Twitter: "TheStreetSweeper announces new short position in $OLED and imminent release of its next report on a brand-new company today."
  • Universal Display (OLED -3.3%) has fallen in response to the disclosure. TheStreetSweeper took aim at the company back in 2011, criticizing insider selling and the terms of the Samsung deal (among other things).
Comments (17)
  • sidney
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    this was no fall in response to a tweet... this was short selling hedge funds using his long/short strategy and selling 150k shares out of their long position to manipulate the stock in support of a 8-9 million share short position. See this for full write up on long/short : http://tinyurl.com/k9n...
    17 Oct 2013, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • sidney
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    I can't help but wonder given this spin how much Sweep/Asensio paid you to post this story? The integrity of the SA staff person should be in question. It strikes me as a compliance violation for frontrunning for Asensio and pal's long/short strategy. PS. Why do you continue to tolerate Asensio's repeated violations of TOS in his relentless short and distort campaign vs OLED?
    17 Oct 2013, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    I can assure you no one was paid anything. The stock fell because of TheStreetSweeper's statement, thus it was deemed newsworthy. If the stock rose because of a comment, that would also be covered. No need for conspiracy theories.
    17 Oct 2013, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • clydedoggie
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    Time of tweet: 10:42
    minute by minute close price and vol around this time
    10:40 30.72 7482
    10:41 30.74 4383
    10:42 30.51 8496
    10:43 30.67 1600
    10:44 30.62 900
    10:45 30.66 2976
    and continued slightly up basically for the rest of the day.
    Of course, the 200,000 shares sold between 10:18 and 10:19 (as sidney pointed out) where it dropped a dollar certainly isn't as relevant as the 20 cent move for a couple thousand shares around the tweet. From the time of the tweet to the time of this market currents post the stock went continuously up. Odd how you conclude the tweet caused the stock to fall. Also odd how this appeared six minutes after the tweet. Must have someone at SA REALLY interested in OLED to be sitting on the twitter feed. I'm sure there was no collusion to help spread the tweet to drive the price down. SA is just interested in getting the facts (cough, cough) out there.
    17 Oct 2013, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • clydedoggie
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    sidney, i have brought up these exact points in an email exchange with SA and gotten the typical silence in response. I can only conclude that, as far as OLED, SA is compromised. As such, any article on OLED on SA is worthless because we don't know the motivation behind it.
    17 Oct 2013, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • sidney
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    thanks for making my point clear clydedoggie...its examples like this one where senior management/ownership refuses to admit the truth that brings the whole medium of integrity into question for SA. Does SA exist by design as a cover for long/short fund hedge types? Or can SA really pull its head out of the sand and review this story for what it was..front running. There is a compliance violation here and I'm assured about as far as I can throw SA staff... zero. The stock rallied because off those lows caused by the long stock being dumped because quite frankly ...everyone is aware of Asensio's backed against a corner and happy to take the other side when he dumps his long stock. He is failing to convince anyone of his arguments in order to cover more of his short position.. and every day it gets harder for him use his long positions as a ruse to get folks to pile in on the short side with him (new shorts - so he can pass his very hot potato to them) or to get folks to join in some kind of panic sell. The long side of the market is becoming "trained" to look for his long stock sales as "a sale price" situation and flock to buy it back quick. This is not where a short seller wants to be, SA's journalists should be covering the complicated strategies that Asensio's crowd is deploying and how the market has figured it out and know trapping him in a white whale type trade situation where once a big position is established with no clear exit the whale starts to howl more frequently and louder that the end is near in an attempt to gain everyone's favor back...in the mean time the market has decided to harpoon the daily strategies.. this is the real story and one that management would be better served to demonstrate.. the idea that that tweet caused the fall is a farce, a bold face lie, and the fact that SA is defending that idea despicable and with no journalist integrity whatsoever. I'm deeply dissapointed in SA's editorial review of this situation...given the degree upon which SA has published TOS and compliance rules I expected far greater analysis to review violations than a quick "your wrong" with no facts to back it up. Clearly, clydedoggie provided evidence to the contrary with practically no effort undermining the so called review by SA staff..if we challenge your staff as owners/management you have a vested interest in proving that you aren't compromised. I would agree with cylddoggie that there is really little chance of SA ever even being aware of this blip in oled pricing/twitter story unless someone at SA had a vested interest in the OLED story or has a friend who tipped them off to print the story... its a very clear case that needs to be reviewed for front running. Translation we know a rat when we see one. Management needs to explain how it is out of all the stocks in existence how they became aware of this event and why they would spin it that way. This was pure stock manipulation/fraud on the long/short crowds part when using the long position to stage their short covering... and when backed by a tipped news story makes it worthy of a compliance/front running investigation.
    Management should be asking "how did the staffer know about this tweet"? Who told them? Why are they watching tweets on oled that closely? Why would they spin this story that way when its clear the market reacted by buying the stock on sale after the long sales (150K) were exhausted? The timing and the spin of the story doesn't pass the smell test.
    That said...the actual event backfired and the desired effect of generating more sales volume on the down side didn't happen.
    The whole of SA's looking the other way on the total of Asensio's blogs/articles against a vareity of TOS rules doesn't pass the smell test. This is Liam/Microvision all over again but in spades.. and don't think I haven't thought that Liam = Asensio and crowd in the first place. They brought Liam back from the dead to attack OLED in 2011 too. That can't be coincidence. I'd suggest management re-review this story and explain to the public how magically they were watching oled tweets and spun a reaction counter to the actual data presented. Do explain.
    19 Oct 2013, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • sidney
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    the only reasonable excuse I see being given, in light of the actual trade data facts is that the SA staff got duped into the conclusion and just don't know how to look at the trade data before drawing the conclusions.. this leaves of course a bad choice.. either they are ignorant (stupid) or they are compromised. Nobody wants to admit either so no doubt they will stand by their conclusions but the data proves the spin was inaccurate...so either correct your story and report on the real story one of a long/short seller trying to exit their massive short position through every means possible including stock manipulation by selling a smaller long position to create momentum to cover their larger short position or just come clean and admit that you didn't realize this story was that complicated and falsely spun it and call it a day... but the tweet did not cause the fall... in fact later tweets said it all when a few coat tailing traders admitted they covered their day trade shorts when the "hit" failed to materialize further downside momentum. its sad(I actually like SA) that SA got sucked into supporting this hit piece. Frankly the idea that SA covers tweets as newsworthy events is a bit scary...tweets are not exactly what I'd call properly vetted sources of info... and then to say that one reports tweets that move markets and then have someone demonstrate that the market actually moved the other way than reported by you after the tweet... that just doesn't jive. So either you can figure out whether the market is moving up or down after a tweet or you're are back to looking like you are compromised. So either your staff is not trained sufficiently to draw the proper market conclusion or they are compromised. The choice seems pyric to me. I'd rather have confidence that staff can review the market data accurately and also feel confidence that they aren't just out to get oled and somehow randomly learned of the oled tweet thing. Again this whole event doesn't pass the smell test. PS. The ongoing attack since 2004 by the miscreant crowd isn't a conspiracy at all.. we all know how Streetsweepers, Herb, and many others are connected to Asensio (in no small part thanks to them pissing of a billionaire child prodigy of Warren Buffet by naked short selling more stock that exists of his company)..what bothers us is here is that a new dot got connected to SA by virtue of this tweet spin.What gives? What bothers us is there is a now nearly daily short and distort attack hosted by SA against oled by the wide open long/short crowd. So drop the conspiracy notion this isn't a conspiracy its an open wide all out war. Which side is SA on? Frankly it shouldn't be on either side..but at the very least it should be sure to report accurately and enforce its own TOS, compliance rules... So again its either an unfortunate misreported/inaccurate or a real compliance problem in that the editor had a vested interest in inaccurately spinning the story. I do hope its the former... but the ridiculous relentless attack on oled hosted on SA lately that somehow passes SA/TOS muster makes us wonder about the later. If it was simply a simple mistake in getting the direction wrong after the tweet , I do apologize...but there is now a raging battle between UDC and short sellers trying to change the rules of the game to turn reality into hype that we don't need SA staff mistakes contributing unwittingly to the battle.
    19 Oct 2013, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    OLED fell 2.5% on a day when the NASDAQ rose 0.6%. Moreover, shares dove right around the time TheStreetSweeper made its disclosure. And TheStreetSweeper does have a long history of moving stocks, sometimes just by announcing an article will be published in the future.

     

    http://bit.ly/17XNYHW
    http://bit.ly/17XO8yV).

     

    OLED did indeed spike lower shortly before the tweet was published. It's possible that some of TheStreetSweeper's readers were alerted about the pending OLED report before the tweet (they also have an e-mail service), but it still looks as if their disclosure was responsible for the drop.

     

    There have been plenty of Market Currents reporting positive news/commentary and/or upside movements in OLED's shares (here's one from just earlier this month - http://bit.ly/17XO9De). Conspiracy theories about market manipulation, paid journalists/bloggers, etc. are as absurd as they are insulting.
    20 Oct 2013, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • aporeh
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Eric, you are full of #@#@#$@$#
    I personally use the TheStreetSweeper' to buy stocks they "short". Each time I have done very well. This is how it works. The TheStreetSweeper publishes a negative report.... the stock dives 20% as short sellers pile up. The real short sellers dump their shares and the stock pops up. Ah... and I can give you a "tip".... this works like magic.
    21 Oct 2013, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • sidney
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    the real story the last few days would be PRKR and the jury's indictment of Asensio's technical skills in patent assessment (the same basic thesis he uses today to challenge oled). Why doesn't the staff at SA tell us what Asensio had to say about the technical worth of PRKR's patents in 2004 (and much earlier)...the Jury tore to shreds his conclusions and now what are we to think of Asensio's credibility in attacking oled? Nice distraction to keep everyone's attention away from the real story moving markets (PRKR is up how much since the jury released their verdict this week?)
    19 Oct 2013, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • Esekla
    , contributor
    Comments (2032) | Send Message
     
    Guys, this is pretty ridiculous. It should be obvious that the editors here are fairly clueless when it comes to news specific to individual stocks. They are not even specialized by sector. That's just how it is and all there is to it.

     

    What's more important is that this latest YAAAWNN (Yet Another Asensio Article With Nothing New) was spectacularly mistimed, or desperate. As posted here http://bit.ly/H8NSrE the EU Patent Office just validated UDC's patent in the case he was writing about. This seems to have been either missed, or misunderstood so far. It's great news, together with AUO finally mass producing screens,
    20 Oct 2013, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    Actually, the editors do focus on individual sectors (I cover tech during my shift), and it should be apparent that we have a lot of knowledge built up about many of the companies that we cover.

     

    You appear to be upset over the fact that the news isn't covered exactly how you wish for the handful of companies that you write about.
    20 Oct 2013, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • aporeh
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Eric.... your are kidding?
    ThStreetsweeper is not a consumer advocate or a reliable news channel ... its run by shorts aimed as targeting companies. They state that they have a vested interest in doing so. What about a noted short seller having his own column? Is seeking Alphas just a channel were anyone writes regardless of their background? Are you a reporter or do you just read twits and then forward them? Is SA an objective news worthy source? and if we are discussing the ThStreetsweeper I can tell you that is a great site. I don;t have access to the "tips" and which stocks they plan to "short" but I do know that after the real shorts dump their shares the companies stock often pops up .. In many cases it works like a charm. What to look for: Statements like "we have reviewed the IP portfolio..." or the drug company is marketing a drug that is .... LOL... I made a killing on this "tips". Thank you Streetsweeper for sweeping such great companies my way
    21 Oct 2013, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for your polite and respectful anonymous responses. I cover hundreds of different sources for news, through Twitter and other means. TheStreetSweeper happens to be one of them, owing to its long history of moving stocks.

     

    In this case, their actions were newsworthy because they apparently moved OLED's shares. Just as it would be newsworthy if OLED's shares traded higher because another site or newsletter offered a bullish take on the company (in which case, I doubt you'd be complaining).
    21 Oct 2013, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • Esekla
    , contributor
    Comments (2032) | Send Message
     
    I'm not upset at all. I agree that this was newsworthy. People want to know why a stock is moving and this probably had something to do with it.

     

    I was simply trying to calm down some of the ridiculous accusations. I was told by SA Staff in the Contributor Forums that editors are not specialized, though obviously some have more knowledge in certain sectors than others. I offered that as a possible reason why this news was reported when the far more important EPO decision, related to many recent and incorrect predictions by this source, was completely missed.
    21 Oct 2013, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    Understood. The EPO ruling was newsworthy, and appears to have slipped through the cracks as a result of OLED waiting until the evening to release its PR. If I spotted it at the time, it would've been covered.
    21 Oct 2013, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • sidney
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    so if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting the Sweep provided material non-public information to its subscribers in advance of its news release (with full knowledge of when it will release its news) such that the subscriber base would have sold the stock minutes or seconds before the tweet and you felt it newsworthy to inform your subscriber base that the market went down due to the tweet but then admit later that the stock likely went down before the tweet due to the inside knowledge of the tweet by subscribers of the tweet's source in advance... To conclude you think its probable that it was the Sweep that participated in insider trading and front running and its just your awesome skills as technology analysts that picked up on this tweet so quickly (I'll even grant that SA is awesome in its coverage) and decided to try to help your subscribers understand what the Sweep was up to... Ok we truly do appreciate your own going efforts in keeping us informed. Maybe next time you share a Sweep tweet you can remind us that their subscribers likely heard it first and are hoping that we'll join in the general market direction that the tweet was trying to promote so we can give the subscribers with the early advanced info of the tweet an opportunity to profit at our expense for being late to the party. Thank you, we all appreciate your coverage of Sweeps front running and subscriber insider trading.

     

    your insights reminded me of GS's huddles:
    http://bit.ly/H9qdaK

     

    I think investors would also be well served by googling Asnesio, Long/Short
    so they can appreciate the nuances of someone holding both very large short positions (8-9 million shares) while also holding large long positions and how the two are used in concert to influence the market direction.
    20 Oct 2013, 09:01 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)