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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (87638)	12/28/2000 10:55:40 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 132070

Nadine, >>Who is pushing this topic to the media? Arthur Levitt? and why now? wouldn't this information have been a lot more useful, say, three years ago, before so many small investors got fleeced listening to bubblevision?<< The damage is already done. The bandits already made off with the loot so its OK to talk about it now. In fairness though, A.L. was very vocal for the last few years. People didn't listen. >>I find it really interesting that the wine industry was so defenseless against one honest critic, while the defenses of Wall Street seem impenetrable.<< Wall St is practically running the show. >>There are some honest critics, such as Fred Hickey, but they seem to have a hard time getting any air.<< I agree. In recent years, you really had to search hard for unbiased analysis. >>Why is there no feedback loop in the media that actually rewards good advice and punishes bad? << Because some of the bandits own newspapers, TV stations, magazines etc.... (ratings) Corporate America - especially some top executives that cashed in - benfitted from the pillage. >>Where are the consumer advocates for investors?<< Attacked, discredited, laid off by bull(shit)ish Wall St firms.... Wayne

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (87638)	12/28/2000 12:14:32 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 132070

Nadine, So many questions, so few answers. Who is feeding this info to the media now? Some rich media type who got burned by a Wall Street scam. It happens every downturn. The media ignored the shoddy practices of S&Ls until the fit hit the shan. They ignored insurance cos. paying annuities with 13% interest rates when T-Bonds were at 8% until they started going belly up. They ignored the risks of junk bonds, or, more correctly, actually pushed them with praise, until they started to implode. I guess the problem is that the media reports "news," what is happening now, and not what could or probably will happen. Especially in financial areas. They can project what will happen in the Middle East the next four years under a Bush Presidency, but they can't project that an insurance co. earning 10%, before expenses, on its investments and paying out 12% to policy holders, may eventually have a problem. <g> Part of the reason is that politicians are fair game and cannot sue for political projections. Corporations can and do. So, if you say that 90% of Wall Street analysts have the discernment of a corporate yes man, and the stocks they recommend happen to go up anyway, then you are open to libel suits and a loss of credibility. So, you don't open your trap until the consumers already have lost a lot of money and you can prove that analysts acted inappropriately. The problem is, this doesn't help anyone and just serves to turn people off the market when they should be turning off the stupid way they play the market. Nobody keeps scorecards on analysts, and I have never understood that. Right now we have a situation where analysts who downgraded internut stocks from super duper buy, mortgage your home and get all the leverage you can to buy it now, are praised as seers. That drives me up a wall. <g>

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (87638)	12/28/2000 7:38:53 PM
From: starhawke	Respond to of 132070

*Re: "Why is there no feedback loop in the media that actually rewards good advice and punishes bad?"* Advertising dollars. Simple self-interest. The pageviews of Yahoo, et al. have nothing on the number of E*Trade, Merrill Lynch, et al. ad impressions on CNBS. [I initially thought that 'old media' would turn hostile toward the 'free' advertising-supported dotcoms as they appeared to become more succesful, approach breakeven (EBITDA - Ho ho ho!), and possibly become going concerns. After all, they are natural rivals for the corporate ad dollar. What I failed to realize right away in '98 was just how incestuous the entire ad-supported sector was. A sold ads to B who sold ads to C who sold ads to D, etc., at the same time that A bought ads from B, B bought ads from C, etc. All too often, barter arrangements and 'partnerships' were used instead of cash, so the word 'sold' is not entirely accurate. A little cash went a long, long way. (Dare I coin a phrase - "Fractional Reserve Advertising")] S