The Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LPS5 who wrote (10186)	5/8/2002 3:52:22 PM
From: Bob Kim	of 12617

Does it seem strange to you that if there was clearly fraudulent behavior afoot the AG would even allow a settlement, what with all the careers that could be made, headlines grabbed and elections swept? Not really. Early on, my feeling was the AG wanted to jump on the reform bandwagon not the enforcement one. The former looks pro-active. The latter subjects one to criticism about being late to the party. Kind of in a similar vein to your question, do you think Merrill was smart to give credibility to the conflicts of interests legal strategy by virtue of settling the arbitration case last summer. Most securities pundits quoted in the media thought it was a weak case. Here was a guy who made unsolicited purchases of a stock at prices in the vicinity of $240-$270. He said he relied on Blodget's pre-existing Buy rating, but apparently disregarded Blodget's $175 price target. Later, he blamed Blodget's $100 ($200 on the same basis as the prior prices) price target as one factor that stopped him from selling when he was already down more than 50%. Note that even if the $100 price target was met, the guy would have still lost money.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next