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 : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (5268)	4/6/2000 4:43:00 PM
From: Gary M. Reed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Yogi, there may have been more than meets the eye on the Krispy Kreme tantrums. I was tuned into CNNfn around 8 EST yesterday morning and they were talking about how KREM dropped off a bunch of donuts there early that morning. At 9:30 EST, CNBC still had no donuts. I'm sure CNBC has people monitoring CNNfn telecasts and their noses probably got bent out of shape that CNNfn got donuts and CNBC didn't. Sounds silly on the surface, but I'd be willing to bet you that the competition between CNBC and CNNfn breeds a lot of ego-mania and jealousy between the two networks. On a separate note, why does CNBC buy into these blatant self-promotion schemes? This clown who pegged QXLC at $1000 per share was obviously simply looking for publicity. He's just the latest in the line of clowns who make outlandish $1000 per share predictions to get airtime (remember the goof who topped off QCOM by predicting $1000 per share for it?), trying to make themselves into celebrity analysts (simular to the BW article Tom just posted). I mean, theoretically an analyst reaches a price target by applying an arbitrary multiple to some future earnings or revenue number...so is anyone DUMB enough to believe that these goofs' multiples came out to be EXACTLY $1000 per share? "Hmmm, when I apply a market multiple to my arbitrary estimates, I come up with EXACTLY $1000 per share. Not $975, not $982, not $1034, nope, EXACTLY $1000 per share...how convenient!" Instead of giving them plenty of airtime, CNBC should be flogging these clowns publicly. You know, they used to call people like that "sheisters," now they're called "analysts" and given airtime on CNBC as if they knew what the hell they were talking about or how to even value a stock. I used to work as an analyst and trust me, that goof is no analyst. Someone so hungry for public adoration and celebrity should be in Hollywood, not Wall Street. I can't wait to see this guy crash and burn.