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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69419)	10/22/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 132070

BEARISH ANALYSTS ARE SILENCED By JOHN CRUDELE THE bears are dead on Wall Street. I'm not saying that the bear market is dead. You can tell from yesterday's stock action that pessimism is alive and well. In addition to rising interest rates, the investment community now gets to worry about poor corporate profits - a one-two punch that's almost impossible to achieve. But while pessimism abounds in investors' heads, you won't see much of it in the research reports or market letters put out by brokerage firms. That's because bearish market strategists are getting the heave-ho. "In the spring and summer, if you were a bear you were doo-doo," says one strategist who's seen his job go bye-bye because he tried to offer his unvarnished opinion of the market's high risks. "Right now if you are a bear on Wall Street, you are definitely seen as a wet blanket." You've already read here and other places how Wall Street analysts are virtually forbidden to put "sell" recommendations on stocks. That would be bad for business at investment houses that want to suck up to companies so they'll get highly-profitable investment banking business. So, a much nicer-sounding "neutral" rating had replaced the dreaded "sell." With corporate stock analysts already censored, Wall Street is now moving to clamp down on market strategists who dare to endanger its livlihood. So market strategists now have only one objective: to give their reasons why this market bubble will last forever, even though none has before. Michael Metz, who's almost as famous as his CIBC Oppenheimer & Co. firm, is allowed to manage money these days but doesn't issue market reports anymore. Charles Clough and his pack of bears will leave Merrill Lynch in a few days. And Don Hays, a very literate market voice who's been preaching caution, is leaving Wheat First Union. In a recent market report, Hays told his readers that when he's gone, not to listen to those who will have you believe the stock market isn't dangerous. As brokerage firms see it, strategists like Hays run the risk of scaring off customers. People aren't going to open brokerage accounts at firms that are telling them they might lose money. Wall Street might not be able to get Alan Greenspan - or me, for that matter - to stop warning investors. But it can certainly handle its own. Says another Wall Street strategist: "If you're bullish and wrong, it's OK. But if you are bearish and wrong, it's unacceptable." The strategist added: "It's suicide to be rational in an irrational environment." Ironically, the killing of bearish voices has intensified with recent market troubles. The more dangerous the stock market seems to get the less Wall Street wants anyone being frank with clients. What's wrong with this new sort of Wall Street research? First off, it's dishonest. Not too long ago, stock analysts were allowed to make negative comments about companies, market strategists felt free to speak their minds without risking their jobs and even journalists who were commenting on the market attempted to see past the spin. How can this new form of research hurt? For one thing, investors can lose a lot of money listened to self-serving market outlooks. And Wall Street can also be hurt by this deception. Despite the investment professionals' party line, bull markets don't last forever. And when this one ends, the financial community could be changed forever if it loses the trust of investors. Especially now that people can trade cheaply on their own over the Internet, the only value brokerage firms add to the process is honest research. >>>I thought buy was a sell and strong buy was a buy. >>>And everything else was dump hard.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69419)	10/22/1999 12:17:00 PM
From: PaperChase	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

MB. Are you buying puts on QQQ or are you going to wait for it to hit $137 this time? <g> There are some "conservative" Hedging and Arbitrage plays out there that involve the Baby Bells. I'm playing BEL/GTE and QWST/USW.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69419)	10/22/1999 12:49:00 PM
From: TRINDY	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Michael, I assume that you have seen the GTW news of their alliance with AOL, their great earnings, their Mac killer, their 35 cents better than expected earnings. Do these stylized facts change your opinion any on this stock? It gained 20% in one day. Also, I'm interested in reference material you might point me to. Where is it I can learn more about the potentials for a nuclear winter that Fleck and others talk about? Indeed, I'm interested in the processes by which you form your judgments on stocks. I am very impressed with your work. Just trying to learn more about what you feed into your decision making processes. Thanks in advance.