### Comment:
Because he hasn't made any persuasive arguments to support that his approach is more valid than literally any other research analyst or even GE's approach to the valuation of reserves. Therefore, if there's nothing 'new' other than this guy's reputation supporting a lower valuation of GE, the information should be priced in (barring temporary market sentiment adjustments). 
  
 Why do you believe a random dude whose report you haven't read and which you don't understand?

### REPLY:
Because he is not exactly a random dude - he exposed the Madoff fraud 10 years before the SEC finally ended it.  
  
 Moreover - I watched his congress testimony relating to Madoff, his 'Interest' (NZ website) interview, his Yahoo and CBNC interviews, and he comes off as one of those rare people who don't bullshit around. He reminds me of William Black.

### END.