If Roaring Kitty is a hero of the GameStop saga, then Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter is one of the many villains—at least if you ask the average meme trader.

I asked Pachter what he makes of the recent posts on accounts tied to Keith Gill.

“At this point, he knows his posts are going to rile up the faithful, so he is within legal bounds, but borders on unethical when he buys a bunch of stock before posting,” Pachter says.

Pachter, who was one of the more upbeat analysts covering the stock prior to its January 2021 surge, is now the last major sell-side analyst still covering GameStop. He has an Underperform rating and a $7 price target.

He’s been fairly consistent in his view that those betting on GameStop’s future success are misguided. He correctly poked holes in theories that crypto and nonfungible tokens would provide the firm a lifeline. And he’s been vocal about apparent turnover at the firm since Chewy co-founder Ryan Cohen became the board’s chair in June 2021. He has conceded that cash raided from stock sales has cleaned up the firm’s balance sheet to keep the lights on longer than most bears previously expected.

“This time around, there is no ‘story’—no unbalanced short interest, no super secret strategy, no reinvention of the company, no highly regarded new management coming on board—so it’s hard to see how the faithful have a chance to make a profit,” Pachter says. “The fundamentals have deteriorated over the last three years and aren’t getting better, and the strategy was an abject failure.”

Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee told Barron’s a case against Gill, assuming he is the one making the recent posts on X and Reddit, would be hard for the Securities and Exchange Commission and nearly impossible for private investors.

“He has neither made any recommendation or price prediction for the issuer,” Coffee says. “If he had made significant purchases before he flashed his name before the market, it might be possible. But I do not yet understand that to be the case. Pleading and proving scienter would thus be difficult.”