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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (30327)	10/22/2000 4:09:28 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 436258

<in today's Barron's:> There is also a really lame defense of CPI by Epstein... doesn't even mention hedonic pricing. DAK

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (30327)	10/23/2000 7:51:11 AM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Patron: I am delighted to see this "sick" topic finally getting the publicity it deserves. I wrote about this practice well over a year ago, in my (former) newsletter, "The Tech Review", not with respect to Cisco, but with respect to MSFT. Bill Parish, a west coast actuarial, was the guy who got me on to this fraudulent activity. It was also Bill who initially dug up this can of worms at Cisco. Did Barrons give him the credit he deserves for this? On the same plain, I see that an equally sick accounting practice, the selling of put options by a company against its own stock, which it appeared had been stamped out by the SEC, has reared its ugly head again. Yes, the SEC admonished companies not to sell put options in the public markets, but apparently this did not stop companies from selling put options via private transactions (as, for example, to a bank or brokerage house). Clever. Delightfully, one of my favourite hate objects appears to be in trouble as a result of just such a transaction. Best, Earlie