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 : Market Gems:Stocks w/Strong Earnings and High Tech. Rank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WaveSeeker who wrote (95000)	4/28/2000 10:41:00 AM
From: Lane Hall-Witt	Respond to of 120523

WaveSeeker, I obviously overstated my point somewhat; CNBC does have some sources who are giving straight talk, rather than manipulating viewers. Tom Galvin is one. I think Abby Joseph Cohen's call a couple of months ago was bold, given that there was still a heavy trend into tech when she came out with her stance. Mark Bloch from Raymond James has been successfully going against the grain for several weeks now. My favorite equity analyst is Dan Niles of Robertson Stephens: he has made many tough (and accurate) calls over the past few years. He won no friends when he said DELL would miss earnings for the first time; he was way out there on his own, but he was right--. As for manipulation of the futures market, I don't think it requires collusion so much as inaction by most of the market players. As I see it, it's less a product of any conspiracy than of illiquid markets that are fairly easy for big money to move. Yesterday's economic data no doubt froze a lot of players in place, and I'd say someone stepped up and sold a lot of contracts into the illiquid futures market to drive it to lock-limit down. How long did it take for that same player (or small group of players) to "change his mind" and start buying stocks yesterday? We don't have the data to answer this question, but we've now seen two days in two weeks that started lock-limit down and ended on amazing rallies. What are we to make of that? There's obviously a lot of blatant manipulation among equity analysts, whether through their appearances on CNBC, their research reports, or whatever. Remember that $1000 ($333 post-split) price target put on QXLC recently? Or that guest host on CNBC who recently pumped EPIC? The $1000 ($250 post split) target on QCOM? The whole game of Net research is a giant fraud, with outlandish analyses and price targets. The good thing to all of this "manipulation" (or whatever it is) is that there are patterns, so you can trade on it in reasonably predictable ways. It's just that there's a bit of "reading between the lines" involved in being on the right side of these patterns. Are those black helicopters I see out of my office window? LOL!