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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 8:45:51 AM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

WALLSTREET IS A FARCE!

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 9:08:26 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Fred, re: "The worst part of it is that in the past six months there hasn't been a single credible research report comparing sector valuations over market cycles, or at least credible enough to be debated in the financial media." Wasn't it SSB that made the sector call on semiconductors, what, about five months ago when everyone else was still bullish? They didn't do a "sector valuation" report, but still their call looks prescient at this point. I also remember that most every analyst knocked the report, as well as most on these threads (myself included). John

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 12:55:59 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Respond to of 186894

buy recommendations on stocks that have lost most of their value become an embarassment. I've never understood this...if the idea is to buy low and sell high wouldn't it make more sense to have downgrades at the top and upgrades at the bottom?

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 1:24:25 PM
From: George the Greek	Respond to of 186894

re: Analyst Credibility Isn't is a given that many stock analysts have been running around for a long time with no clothes? The demise of analyst credibility? Did analyst credibility just die? No, I think it's been in the coffin, rotting for a long time. This business of analysts coming late to the downtrend, and then downgrading which you mention - I can get a computer to come out with calls like that with a few lines of code. Which is not to disparage the good ones out there, for it is wrong to paint everyone with the same broad brush. But they tend to be overshadowed by the sensationalist, play-by-play reporting of the markets that's become, it seems to me, like sports reporting, like a spectator sport. George

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 2:07:07 PM
From: diana g	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Isn't it awfully credulous for anyone to believe that someone who could predict market movement with a reasonable degree of accuracy would work as an analyst? If one goes to the horse track there are men drifting around the crowd who will tell you which horse will win if you'll cut them in on your assured future winnings. Most people can put two + two together and realize that if these guys could call the winners they wouldn't need to be doing this. --- Why are stock analysts different? --- Is it the $2k suit? It's sure not the success record. The truly interesting thing here, imho, is people's willingness to be repeatedly drawn into this confidence game. A self-assured manner and a snappy patter will empty the suckers' pockets again and again. Twas always thus. ---d

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 3:02:39 PM
From: drirak	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I'd like to add one other who stayed correct on the market but who was not part of a brokerage or investment banking house and that was Bob Brinker. Alas, had I paid attention when in fact he made all the sense in the world I would not be feeling anxious during these days of the bear.

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 3:24:11 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

It should also be noted that the analysts never look past the short-term. In Intel's case, for example, there is no mention that next year they will be supplying huge quantities of X-box chips. And what about flash/DRAM demand for the X-box. Where is the analysis of that? Or for that matter, for 3G buildouts? As well (and as a current example), analysts are going crazy downgrading Compaq at a multi-year low, without mentioning the explosion of sales in handheld computers, with Compaq at the lead--clearly a growing trend. I agree the analysts have little credibility at this point. What's needed is more vision, instead of re-iteration of the present wonderful (or less than wonderful) state. But perhaps that vision isn't widely published--and is the kind only given to select clients...or found on SI? And today on the news, there was little mention of Tech Data's (TECD) results or outlook. Surely analysts know TECD is a major IT/PC supplier?!?? Do they not?

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 4:08:37 PM
From: Herb Duncan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

All will have their 15 minutes of glory including Gail Dudad Follow the market for the past 30 years and at any given time someone has been right re the market , remember Granville? Where is he now? I guess I question the wisdom of looking for the Market Messia, he or she doesnt exist.

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 8:28:48 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 186894

It is all too obvious that the analysts have tremendous conflicts of interest. One doesn't have to be a Nobel Laureate in Economics to figure that out. I am pretty sure that the average investor was very well aware of that. But the investor wanted to play with fire anyway, and now that he's got burnt, he has gotten wiser. Or has he?! :-)

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	11/30/2000 9:09:56 PM
From: james paterson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Actually, Don Hays, whose service I subscribe to has called the mkts including the naz almost flawlessly for decades. And Bill Fleckenstein right here on SI has been rightfully bearish on the naz all year, although he was bearish too early. "The only living and breathing maven that was and has remained bearish on the Naz for the past year is Gail Dudad (correct spelling" James

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	12/1/2000 10:59:28 AM
From: Michael H	Respond to of 186894

I think we need to give the analysts some credit. Coming from High School, being on their "training on the job", being abused by their traders to pump the stock they own... We all had the same "problem" on the bull market in the past years: Buying stock on prices we knew they were overvalued hoping we would find a even bigger idiot later who is buying the stock for twice the price and getting rich (the analysts certainly helped us by doing this), or staying out of the game being reasonable and staying poor. Nothing to complain about. Michael

To: fred woodall who wrote (119749)	12/1/2000 11:47:07 AM
From: Hickory	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Fred, Well said! But only dolts are stupid enough to ever put any credence in the recommendations of "analysts". It is well-known that the function of most analysts is to tout whatever stocks their employer has accumulated for sale to the public or which their employer is trying to get an investment banking deal from. In addition, given the vagaries of market sentiment, it's safer for an analyst to make recommndations that are in line with what other analysts are saying---except, of course, under the circumstances mentioned in the previous paragraph. That way, he isn't the only one looking like a fool. In either case, the analyst's recommendation is virtually worthless and often is very detrimental to the private investor's "health." Unfortunately, lazy people with money to invest will continue to take the advice of analysts rather than do their own research. I guess they deserve the consequences. Hickory P.S. I think her name's spelled Dudack or Dudak. She's a rare one who calls it like she honestly sees it.