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: Ilaine who wrote (32821)	10/31/2000 8:52:21 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

surely that was obvious to most market participants at the time...how else does one come up with an outrageous target in uncharted territory? it sure was the trigger though for the whole outrageous targets nonsense that ensued, which imo did untold damage all things considered. it was interesting how it stopped working when on day an 'analyst' came out with an extra idiotic target for the British dotcom auction stock, i don't remember its name... in hindsight, that was as clear a sign as any that the game had irrevocably changed. well, it actually began when an equally ludicrous target price for QCOM was not reached within two days of its being issued, and was in fact never reached. before that, targets used to be exceeded, no matter how utterly ridiculous. the truly amazing thing is that the <expletive of your choice>s perpetrating this nonsense still seem to enjoy the same respect as before (well, not in all quarters)and apparently continue to be listened to. the media also refrain completely from taking 'analysts' to task over their in hindsight often completely disastrous recommendations. somehow giving financially destructive advice in the most public of forums seems to be considered exempt from critical examination. the closest i see e.g. CNBS coming to critical appraisal of what passes for 'analysis' on WS is when they joke about downgrades on stocks after they have already lost 90% of their value. but that's always done in a jokular, non-confrontational manner. confrontation is reserved exclusively for bears. guest: "i think the NAZ will go lower" Kernan: "i'll write that down....we'll tell you about it once the market has gone higher". the implication being that market pessimists are only scaring peiople out, since everybody knows you should be fully invested at all times...whether it makes sense or not. -g- btw, not only should one be fully invested, but also buy every dip...although it remains a mystery how fully invested people can do that. except on margin perhaps... they come to tell you you can't time the market whenever it gets whacked...but they still want to know from their guests if it'll go up or down. they also ALWAYS want to know what one should buy...even from the occasional bear. which reminds me, the only ones ever daring to answer with 'stay out' were Fleck and Tice.... and the only one ever to recommend gold stocks was Arch Crawford, a well known fringe whacko -g-. all the others say 'get defensive'...but stay fully invested of course... irresponsible analysts, irresponsible media, lots of Prozac and stupendous money supply growth...the essence of the mania.

To: Ilaine who wrote (32821)	11/1/2000 4:43:36 AM
From: KeepItSimple	Respond to of 436258

>The difference was that Blodget later openly admitted that his $400 price >target for Amazon in December, 1999 was just pulled out of the air. I prefer this quote from that article. Should instill confidence with investors everywhere regarding the quality of research these days: --------- Going to upgrade, he tells an assistant as he walks out the door at 8:20 p.m. Not that he expects Amazon to go up that much. "I think it's dead money for a while, but I want to differentiate it from all the pieces of [expletive] we have buys on," he says cheerfully. ----------