The big difference is that most other investments have a commodity or something physical that can't be diminished or wiped from existence.

there have been at least two instances where Bitcoin experienced significant drawdowns, one at 84% the other at 93%. The most recent drawdown, the result of the Segwit2X debacle, Bitcoin drew down 50%.

Bitcoin is benefitting from strong brand recognition. It's technology is being eclipsed as new projects and new use cases are addressed. Bitcoin's use cases are narrowing...so there's really only one path for the original, and that's as a store of value. But even that it tenuous because there are so many ways the value could be cutdown that branding cannot save.

So you have no rebuttal to my points, just disagreement without any real opinion. You are likely very inexperienced. I do very well by the way.

You may be hurt because of your personal investment, and want to believe that it is invincible, but investors need to know just how vulnerable #Bitcoin is and what those vulnerabilities are.

This is not just a simple social commentary, this is people's hard earned investments being thrown about in an almost criminal act of negligence. IMO.

If I were an investor in his service I would have a HUGE problem...and as an investor outside his service I have a huge problem as well, in that his position affords him leveraged access to the media, causing the stock to make unusual moves affecting literally billions of dollars invested. I don't see how you don't see that is a problem.

If I were an investor in his service I would have a HUGE problem...and as an investor outside his service I have a huge problem as well, in that his position affords him leveraged access to the media, causing the stock to make unusual moves affecting literally billions of dollars invested. I don't see how you don't see that is a problem.

It's not quite so simple. If the analyst stated their method of analysis upfront and was consistent across the board, that would be one thing. But this rating is out of the blue. Investors join advisory services based on clear expectations of philosophy and methodology of the analysts or fund(s) they represent. As far as I know, this is a first for this guy. Also, consider that he is only one of a handful, I think 2 or 3 analysts out of 60 major analysts that have a negative rating on Apple. It sounds to me like this person has an itch for Apple. Plus the fact that his target hasn't changed and is higher than the current price, adds to the confusion. So, inprinciple I agree with you, that an analyst can do whatever they want. But when they act irrationally, then they are doing a diservice not only to their clients, but also to the public at large when their ratings are released to the public.