S.F. Examiner opinion piece. Comments?
Rah-rah CNBC had the suckers going for a ride
examiner.com
By Martha Smilgis
Special to The Examiner
"The sooner CNBC banishes analysts and the annoying static they create, the better....Our happy-faced anchors aren't about to do any investigative reporting... .Instead, they are too often shills for the financial industry... ."
THERE IS NO doubt in my mind that we fools who have
religiously watched CBNC over the past three years have lost
money in the stock market. My proof comes from the network's
ratings. When the Nasdaq zoomed to astronomical highs,
CNBC's viewership soared as well. Now, with the Nasdaq in
free-fall, we remorseful investors click off the tube. The network of
promise has become the network of pain.
History, however, teaches us to behave differently. The more
scholarly sages of Wall Street tell us that the 6 percent of
investors who buy at the bottom of the market make money and
the 80 percent of us who fell for the CNBC daily drumbeat of
casino hype -- and bought tech stocks near the top ---- are,
simply put, suckers. We suckers are now turning away from what
was our favorite feel-good network, disgusted at the sinking value
of our once-beloved stocks.
Back during the tech boom, we usually sober and circumspect
investors were snookered by CNBC's happy-faced anchors and
climbing green ticker tape set to a background of pulsing music.
At the dawn of 2000, CNBC was suddenly everywhere. It became
the wallpaper network. The familiar gang of personality-plus
anchors appeared in offices, kitchens, barrooms, liquor stores
and even gas stations. Elevators and gyms were lit up by the
dancing ticker tape under those ebullient faces.
Just a year ago, in powerhouse urban centers, sophisticated
dinner conversation actually focused on how in the world Joe
Kernan's tousled hair and lopsided grin got him a Playboy layout.
(In case you don't recognize the name, he's CNBC's wiseacre
stock specialist who looks like he's falling off his chair.) Intelligent
career women debated whether or not Sue Herrera wore too much
makeup and speculated as to which Wall Street mogul Maria
Bartolomo, the Sophia Loren lookalike, had married. And no one
can deny that the boyish charm of Bill Griffeth is infectious, while
the broad-shouldered Ted David relates his diet woes in an
amusing manner.
WHAT WE HAVE here is a colorful cast of television
characters with distinctive personalities and entertaining cross
chat. What we don't have is a group of serious business
journalists. OK, save maybe Ron Ansana with his skeptical and
quizzical asides, but overall, as a group, we are talking about a
parade of bubbleheaded television readers.
Herein lies the problem: We foolish viewers and equally naive
investors attributed some type of critical skill to their performance.
What a mistake! The CNBC bubbleheads are simply
unquestioning promoters who created a friendly platform for every
con artist analyst to come aboard and hawk his or her bogus
stock estimates. And were they bogus! The reward for most
outrageous performance goes to Walter Piecky, tech analyst for
Paine Webber, who issued a BUY on Qualcom at $420 a share
with a target price of $1,000! This with a straight face, no less.
(Today Qualcom hands on at $61)
The BUY-BUY-BUY mantra of these guest analysts spouted
on CNBC would be humorous if we investors hadn't lost so much
money. Checking the stats, one now realizes that 98 percent of
all stocks mentioned were BUYS with a paltry 2 percent SELLS.
What's even more amazing is that, even now the Nasdaq scraping
bottom, these charlatan magpies are still crowing BUY, this time
on Value stocks, many of which have already hit new 52 week
highs!
Of course, what you don't learn from the cheerleader network is
that each guest analyst on the show is paid by a brokerage
house that makes money off the stock the analyst promotes.
(Mary Meeker, tech anlayst for Morgan Stanley made $15 million
in 1999 going on CNBC telling viewers to buy Priceline at $165 a
share ---- now down to $2.) Along with not bringing these critical
behind-the-scene details to the viewer's attention, our happy-faced
anchors don't even question those with obviously vested interest
in the companies they are promoting. Too often, eager-beaver
mutual fund managers come on to pump (and then later dump)
stocks they own.
NOW THAT TECH is in the toilet, it is curious how the
cheerleader network has changed. When you do hear a
"downgrade," it is practically a whisper. Natch. Analysts don't get
paid to downgrade a stock, for all we know they probably get a
salary deduction. The real joke is that the few downgrades that
you do hear come in after the horse is out of the barn.
Downgrading a stock that is at a 52-week low, takes brains?
Pulease!
The sooner CNBC banishes analysts and the annoying static
they create, the better. But there's a fat chance of that happening,
because the network relies on them for news. Our happy-faced
anchors aren't about to do any investigative reporting and actually
give us an objective account of market conditions. Instead, they
are too often shills for the financial industry ---- one often known to
fleece the investor.
Those of us with long careers in journalism know that
traditionally those with the least talent go into biz reporting. It is a
place to start, like writing obits.
But now with the brainpower of the baby boomers swerving over
to business, thanks to their once-plump IRA accounts, you would
think we could get some top-notch biz journalists front and center
instead of a lineup of Wall Street manipulators out to pad the
pockets of brokers, analysts, fund managers and yes, the
silver-tongued anchors.
Viewers beware: Watch at your own risk! |
