David, you raise some good points, but understand that there's a HUGE gulf between saying A) "hey, these guys are intentionally saying X, Y and Z knowing that X, Y and Z are false" and saying B) "geez, I don't know, I'm a little skeptical because I'm not seeing what they see and I sort of have a different opinion when it comes to assessing the past, present and future of both the industry and the company, and maybe what I'm understanding to be an estimate in a financial statement makes me a little less comfortable than if rock-solid number was there instead" etc.
I'm not ready to say A, because that's a VERY serious accusation to make without any evidence.
Saying B is what SI is all about. If I think someone's opinion is wrong, I'm going to say so. And if you think they're right, you respond, others respond, etc. and maybe out of the clash of opinion comes new insight (i.e. the dialetic of: bear thesis + bull antithesis = synthesis, then repeat the process)
Tom Kurlack, Dan Niles, and all the other analysts out there have a job to do, which is providing investment advice to their clients. I have no problem with that. But if I think it's less-than-great advice, I'm going to say so and try to give evidence in support of my position.
When you say that people have "an agenda" - well, my "agenda" is basically - "look, I think their opinions are a little shakey, here's why, and if I'm not getting it I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out to me because I'd rather be wrong in here than in the markets." MU isn't the only stock I trade, but it's the one that, for lack of a better word, that "baffles" me the most.
That's why I think it's great that a person like Sridhar S. comes in here and makes a good argument for the bulls. I disagree w/ him, but I respect him (and I still think I'm going to win our silly prediction contest Sridhar <g>)
And maybe I don't fully understand the impact, reach, whatever, of the posting here, but I'm assuming that a post to SI saying in effect "I think a 20% upside at this point is ludicrous" is going to effect the markets about as much as someone going outside and lighting a match is going to affect to ambient temperature of Philadelphia in the middle of December.
<<they cannot put out deliberately misleading information or tout
stocks in the way that is suggested here>>
And you again raise the point of intent, which is an important point to raise. When Dan Niles says he sees DRAM prices rising, in his mind, I'm sure he does. But to point out the fact that to some degree he was wrong on his May 1 call, or maybe at present is wrong on his last one is not at all suggesting any deliberate attempt to mislead.
As far as touting goes...the dictionary I have on my desk defines "tout" as: "to praise or publicize loudly".
I think one could reasonablely call those repeated reiterations "touts."
<<(They can be wrong, but by the way, anyone who followed their most recent prediction would, of course, have done very well)>>
I agree, but I'd probably add after the word well "if they had entered long at the right point and taken profits already."
Good trading,
Tom |
