And all of those companies can get their asses sued off for misrepresentation and found guilty of criminal behavior.
The question I've repeatedly asked, which remains unanswered: what is criminal, let alone fraudulent, in sending an email expressing a different opinion than that which is expressed in a corporate function?
"Securities brokerage is no different" So true!!!!!!
So you agree with me? Oh no, wait - you don't.
And you wonder why the investigations????
I don't wonder, and haven't wondered why these charges are being brought, Meade. I'm painfully aware of similar paternalist, schadenfreud public policies present and past that are meant to cushion the inevitable fate of the gullible and willfully irresponsible.
Do you wonder why this initiative - like others brought to bear on the securities industry (and indeed other industries by their respective regulators) - seem to come in droves only after the excess and ebullience is gone? Strangely, for all the conspiracy theories that find fertile purchase on SI, that coincidence seems suspiciously overlooked.
Stock Brokers are Stock Brokers, even if you call them analysts.
I couldn't agree more - that's why I refer to them as common, industry-agnostic sales personnel.
LPS5, maybe the mantle of protector of analysts, [recently failed firm] executives and accountants could be passed to you.
Ugh, I don't want it and wouldn't wear it. I protect myself and my family, and that's it. To the extent that my (and their) personal freedoms are endangered by certain groups, I'll rally to those causes too.
Incidentally, I've never mentioned the firm that you have, and I've not discussed accountants - at least in the context of auditing and other such relevant topics - either. That's grossly misrepresentative of the content of my posts, which is historically a pretty good barometer of the strength of my arguments. You, like many others, mistake and oversimplify my positions as being career-oriented rather than philosophically-driven.
I'm a ravenous libertarian who thinks that businesspeople of all varieties are out to get your money, and that their doing so is rational and ethical...and, that if by being asleep that the figurative wheel you let them, they deserve it. And, though I completely expect that you won't fathom the logic flow, I also and simultaneously believe that fraud - the real, legal definition of fraud, not the message board definition* of it - should be prosecuted far more aggressively than it is currently.
So caveat emptor, and leave my freedoms alone.
Your essays on SI are always spot on and informative...
Thanks, I'm glad you think so.
...but defending analysts actions or believing them to be free of fraud...
I don't think that they're "free of fraud" any more, or less, than any other individuals in a particular career field are. But I don't think that posting a buy recommendation while expressing negativity about the issue in an email is fraud anymore than my previous hypotheticals pertaining to a car lot scenario or a customer service represenative are.
...is on the wrong side of the fence.
Uh-huh. And you're suggesting that you're both an adequate, to say nothing of an absolute, judge of that, I guess?
Well, from what I've seen thusfar...if being on the opposite side of an issue from you is wrong, I don't think I want to be right. :)
There's an old saying, John: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." One of my all time faves.
LPS5, no one expects you to ever see anything criminal in the behavior of the analysts.
"No one," eh? And you speak on behalf of who?
We all know...
LOL, again. This is a common, weak tact to attempt to build some sort of argumentative leverage - suggesting that one speaks on behalf of some large group.
So, for the second time: who's in your phantom consortium, Meade? :)
...it is beyond your nature to comprehend their activities to be the slightest bit unethical.
Read, guy. It does an intellect good. In several past posts I've said - rather clearly - that if fraud is indeed - as it should be - the target of securities regulators, we are quite underregulated at the moment. But the federal, state, and organizational regulators seem to prefer market engineering, for whatever reason.
In addition, I noted in one of my last posts that I think that lots of practices in business and daily life are distasteful and perhaps unethical, but I can't bring myself to endorse delegating the management of them to people scarcely more equipped than me to do so.
After all you are in the securities business, correct?
Yup, sure am.
I was looking in to getting licsensed[...]more difficult/unethical.
I'm not aware of any "test" that research analysts have to take, although many are CFAs - which is a financial/accounting professional designation along the lines of a CPA. I suppose that a good number of them have the Series 7, as well.
BTW, isn't the analysts job to help the people NOT shaft themselves?
This is where you fail. If you really believe that, it says more about the potential origin of your arguments than you probably realize.
As I see it: if you want "help," ask your family, visit your doctor or call UNICEF. Other than that, the stock analyst, the car dealer, the bartender, the attorney, and the realtor are all looking to make a buck off you, no matter how warm their smile or inviting their pitch.
Stock Broker logic: "they were going to lose their money anyway"...Good Stock Broker: a guy who can generate $5000 in commissions out of a guy who opens a $5000 account before the guy loses all his money listening to analysts.
Seriously; I don't get it. That's two posts in a row where you've written weird, disjointed thoughts that look like definitions or quotes...but sound like the ghastly, decaying remains of a long-dead sense of humor.
LP.
* "Fraud" (as defined on message boards):
1. Anything done by anyone more successful than me.
2. Any action whereby my unrealistic expectation of a level playing field is made brutally evident;
3. Any action I dislike. |
