Also, the CEO purchased a whole bunch of shares before the report and again after the report. He is probably well positioned to know GE fairly well. It's not a necessary move on his part but it does signal some confidence in GE. Also, having watched him, I can see some inflection points. If you were to graph "sentiment" of news for GE for the past couple of years, it would be kind of a parabola: lots of negatives, then less negative, then it's mixed, and now it's more of "not good enough" (although today was a hugely negative one).
In the end it's still a gamble. I'm not betting the house on it -- it's in fact a tiny percentage of my portfolio (I generally stick with index funds) but sometimes I like to keep myself honest by putting some skin in the game along with my opinions.
Couldn't this be seen as a PR move to do damage mitigation and earn market confidence? As you mentioned that it's an opaque company accounting-wise it'd be hard to evaluate this objectively but the CEO of a possibly fraudulent company buying stocks to earn the market confidence seems to be a very low price to avoid the possible side-effects if the allegations are true.
GE Power made a bad bet against renewables and went with gas but that's a business mistake, not an engineering one. They recently hit a milestone with one of their biggest wind turbines. So they're slowly fixing themselves. This is again a management error, not a lack of engineering abilities.
GE Healthcare is still a leader in their field and also VERY valuable (along with Aviation, these two parts are the best parts of GE).
What the problem for GE is that they've saddled themselves with financial engineering and moved away from their core competency to generate the numbers they want. At one point that made a lot of sense because it enabled their customers to make those large capital investments but then GE managers started using GE financial engineering to smooth over earning reports. Anyone remember when GE was the darling of Wall Street? GE was touted as this well managed firm that gave steady dividends. Well part of that steady dividend and growth came from these financial engineering methods and rather opaque accounting practices (to be fair other companies did similar things).
I can't tell you if GE is a good investment or not. I am long on GE but this new report is pretty damning but as someone pointed out, the person behind the report is far from neutral. Then again, having followed GE for so long (I was long on them starting 2008, sold it all before the plunge, and now long again), there are no real neutral voices in this debate. This though is the fault of GE management, which is not as transparent as they should be.