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 : Stock Attack -- A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: donald sew who wrote (33853)	10/23/2000 10:10:05 AM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

Just noticed that the NDX is now negative while the NAZ is slightly positive so the NDX is for now lagging the NAZ.

To: donald sew who wrote (33853)	10/23/2000 10:20:21 AM
From: Tai Jin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

But aren't these sell-side analysts? They want people to buy near the top so that they (and their big clients) can sell to the little guys. Of course, they make it sound like they really have the retail investors' interests in mind, but they don't care what happens to them as long as their firm and their big clients make money. And they keep the retail investors in the game by telling them to hold for the long term. ...tai

To: donald sew who wrote (33853)	10/23/2000 10:33:36 AM
From: Paul Shread	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42787

The problem with The Analyst Game is that they have to sell their firms' financial services to the companies they cover. That makes them very close to the companies they cover, because no analyst can afford to get frozen out, and the selling focus gives them less time to actually analyze the companies they cover. It's very smarmy, and results in the after-the-fact calls you referred to. Only when a stock is beaten down can an analyst change his or her view, when it's already obvious to the rest of the world. Plus there's that game of downgrading before a stock opens for trading; the overnight drop then looks good on an analyst's record, even though the analyst completely missed the call. A stupid game, ripe for reform. Where's Levitt when something really needs to be reformed? FYI, hope you guys bought MRK when it broke 80 on Friday.

To: donald sew who wrote (33853)	10/23/2000 10:43:19 AM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42787

Mary Meeker is one of the most stupid analysts I have come across in a long time. She claimed today that the next 2 quarters for Microsoft will face a tough comparison from last year. The CFO there said precisely the opposite for the next 2 quarters on the conf call last week... These are the same analysts who were pounding the table on AMZN, YHOO hundred points higher from here...

To: donald sew who wrote (33853)	10/23/2000 1:01:36 PM
From: Nancy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

don, just want to clear things up a little bit. me too, applaud Mark Hines' taking Mary Meeker apart. the other guy, Roger McManee is not an analyst, he is a venture capitalist and a money manager. He was worried and bearish in Feb and told people to take their money off the table. He actually would have made people money. He is turning bullish now and he never advocated any dot.com stock like Meeker does. His only questionable pick would be he thinks AMZN looks interesting at this level and his fund is long it at this level.

To: donald sew who wrote (33853)	10/23/2000 1:51:36 PM
From: lifeisgood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

Don, your post seems to suggest that analysts have no other agenda than to help investors. That couldn't be further from the truth. There is a very good reason they issue "buy" recommendations at the top and "sell" recommendations at the bottom. best... LIG