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.

Technology Stocks : Terayon - S CDMA player (TERN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: big run who wrote (693)	4/16/2000 7:19:00 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 1658

Hey big run, It is a mouthful. I do believe it is an important area which the SEC will be concentrating over the next several years given the changes brought about by these boards. I do realize that someone with bucks can buy information, not from the company or insiders, but from so-called analysts. Although I don't like it, I don't see any legal violation here. Your example is a good one. Merrill releases information to its "good" clients first. I think eventually this type of thing will also be proscribed. There is a very important difference going on here though. Here you have the leaking of a report to select individuals and then "publishing" it as a "news" item as a "disclosure" as opposed to an opinion. I believe this is an unfair, deceptive and manipulative tactic, which may be a violation of the SEC Act and the regs. (If untrue, there may also be other issues of libel, unfair business practice, interference with advantageous relations, fraud, etc.) I'm not saying that I like the fact that brokerage houses release information to select accounts first. However, it is clear that those analyses are opinions as opposed to purported "news alerts" or "truths". There is no overt attempt to be manipulative. That the analyst makes a market in the security and other disclosures are typically included in the report. My comments about some of the self-styled analyst reports that are either published on the boards or released (after payment of the business wire fee) as a PR is that there is an intent to manipulate after selective disclosure. At least one of the short "analysts" states that he has no interest in the equity but is doing it as a "public service." Clearly, the actions of the "analyst" and others who often work in concert with that same "analyst" leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that it is part of a plan to sell short, release supposed news to the public and then campaign to bash the stock, all within a controlled time frame to get the most emotion out of the "news" release. There is certainly a difference in implementation. You don't see brokers (at least they don't identify themselves as such) typically hyping on a board. If they did, they wouldn't say that they are doing it as a public service. Clearly that would be erroneous, manipulative, deceptive and violative of SEC regs. I hope I answered your question. As I've mentioned, this is an area of evolving law, an area where there will be many more cases over the next few years. Sometimes, believe it or not, the law takes a common sense approach. It's hard to believe that the SEC or a Judge would believe that someone is doing a "public service" when that same person appears on the same boards with the same cohorts time and time again. The patterns are the same. The bashing, the scare tactics, the lemmings. In fact, you could almost change the stock symbol and use the same "PR" and bashing posts. Even the personal attacks are almost identical. Substantively, there is very little to differentiate one target from another. When the associate of the analyst brags about "creating volume" so that he was able to profit, that adds further evidence that there is a manipulative scheme that may have front run or scalped some shorts who followed and got burnt. I put little credence in analysts on the long side who put little effort into a report and then release it under the guise of it being something more than what it is, an opinion by someone who knows as much about the company as you or I do. However, these are not released as "news releases" and I don't think a reasonable person would believe them to be such. If they were and there is selective disclosure before this release, I feel that this would be the same manipulative tactic of which I have been critical. Frankly, why anyone would buy or sell based on what some self-styled analyst with a form puts out is beyond me. But we both know that it happens and people are scared into buying and selling based on their view that if it's published, it must be true. That's exactly why you have these Pretend analysts, pretending to know something, basically building a web site and cutting and pasting 24/7.