Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Mr. Pink's Picks: selected event-driven value investments -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (10754)	7/9/1999 4:42:00 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18998

I have made my views about anonymity on SI obnoxiously clear here. That applies to everyone. I disagree about analysts having to be right. Some have dined out on one or two good calls for years afterward, though they are constantly wrong. Look at how many analysts have been screaming bloody murder about the overvalued market which is about to crash for the past several years. They manage and earn millions of dollars a year - for being wrong. Most fund managers can't beat the S&P. They also make millions. Most are losers.

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (10754)	7/9/1999 5:13:00 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Respond to of 18998

> Analysts don't keep getting paid the big bucks if they are wrong too often. < That's an often misunderstood fact about analysts. Sell-side analysts (the ones who work for brokerages) DON'T get paid for being right. They get paid for making their firms money. They do this two ways: First, by making their firm popular with clients who then use their firm's investment banking services. Effectively, they are PR agents for the company's major clients. The more effective the PR, the more the analyst gets paid. Second, they make money by generating commissions for brokers. Again, by creating a lot of hype and giving brokers an excuse to call up sucker clients with lines like "Our analyst just put out a 'table pounding buy' on stock A! You've got to get in now! We'll sell stock B to raise cash for it." [Repeat next week, only sell stock A to purchase C, then sell C to repurchase B....] Bottom line is that their job is primairily in creating a lot of "buzz". He or she who creates the most buzz is the best paid analyst. Read thestreet.com. Note that in comparing analysts, no attention is given to whose picks were better. It's all focused on who brought in the most underwriting business. That's the way their employers see it too. Bottom line, these people are pretty much all paid shills. I disregard them. [It's worth noting that "buy side" analysts are different. These are the ones who have to analyze stocks for money managers and mutual funds. They DO care about being right or wrong. They also don't issue press releases or discuss their picks in public very often. Can't beat the other guy if you give away all your secrets...] mg

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (10754)	7/9/1999 5:39:00 PM
From: Peter V	Respond to of 18998

a MR Pink who has no reputation since he is a fictional entity Have you been asleep during the last day or so of discussions on this thread? Mr. Pink has a reputation among those of us who have "known" him for a while, just as you might "know" any other analyst who you have actually never met.

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (10754)	7/9/1999 7:52:00 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18998

A point worth mentioning is that - MP sticks to few picks which can evolve quickly, while others, like the aforementioned AGX can be held over quite a time, so it is not a nervous player who churns positions all the time. He mentions stocks where no analyst is out upgrading it, whereas when "analyst" coverage kicks in, then most of the money was already made, best example was a catalog retailer who has been taken out later. Just following the few recommendations could make you a living.