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.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 2sigma who wrote (7114)	7/24/1999 3:11:00 AM
From: Dave Kahn	Respond to of 15132

I do not like the tone I hope there is one more up soon Dave

To: 2sigma who wrote (7114)	7/24/1999 11:19:00 AM
From: Digger Sacket	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15132

"BRINKER: Well, I think that the 11,000s could be real difficult to climb through. I think there's a lot of stock for sale in the 11,000s. " Why stay 100% invested if there's little upside, and a big downside? Digger

To: 2sigma who wrote (7114)	7/24/1999 1:40:00 PM
From: Gary D	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15132

About this part of the exchange: "KANGAS: Bob, it's come to my attention that employees at Ultratech have the option to invest their 401 (k) funds with a management firm in which you are a principal. BRINKER: Exactly. KANGAS: So, my question is does your firm recommend individual stocks? BRINKER: Absolutely not. The BJ Group exclusively invests in no-load mutual funds. KANGAS: All right. So, you see no conflict there? BRINKER: Absolutely not." I don't understand Kangas' point, nor his reason for bringing this issue up. So what if Bob's firm recommended individual stocks? How would that be a conflict? Somebody help me here. And if in some respect it would be a conflict, how would Kangas expect more than a small fraction of his viewers to understand this issue in the few seconds of attention it gets. If instead, Kangas asked this primarily to satisfy his own curiosity and not for the benefit of the viewers, then why wouldn't he have asked Bob this question off the air? Asking about the UTEK rec was certainly fair, but to bring this up was not, given the time limitations. The only thing many viewers got out of this was 'Brinker has a potential conflict'. It wouldn't surprise me if this was Brinker's last interview with Kangas.