SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LPS5 who wrote (10173)5/7/2002 3:44:46 PM
From: Dave O.  Read Replies (1) of 12617
 
< No, I fully comprehend the reasons for which posters on a trading- and investment-focused message board might cry for blood after two years of downtrending markets >

So you're implying a bear market is why people are raving mad at Merrill? I hope that's not what you're implying. Which part of (the definition of) fraud is escaping you? Let's try another example ... you buy a house and later find out it's built on a swamp, something the real estate agent didn't tell you and later incur massive expense. The failure to disclose all factual matters would suggest fraud to me, much like the situation with Merrill and their analysts. Did they disclose all they knew about those stocks they covered? Nope.

< I think the fact that there's a settlement at work - and moving slowly, at that - bears the greatest proof ("proof") that the situation is not nearly so cut-and-dried as many of you are convinced that it is. >

I suppose we may see typical resolution where Merrill agrees to fines of a substantial nature and other "reforms" without admitting wrongdoing. But it is cut-and-dried IMO. Why are Merrill execs scrambling to settle ASAP before high level execs are possibly forced to appear and testify at public hearings. Could it be they want to keep a lid on things before any more gets out to the general public?

Message 17431246

< what crime is committed in expressing a different personal opinion than that expressed in the context of discharging duties on behalf of ones' company of employ? >

So are you suggesting that the analysts reports are all that matter and that the emails that trashed the stocks were personal opinions that are uncorrelated to the matter? If in fact you are suggesting that then it would seem clear to me that at the very least the firm was deceitful with clients.

Dave
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News