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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (18404)	1/23/2001 8:32:41 PM
From: Starlight	Respond to of 60323

>>>Maybe the best solution is to use tire irons on the person's knees.<<< Or watch what they do, and do likewise. (If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.)

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (18404)	1/23/2001 9:35:18 PM
From: Bob Kim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Art, I don't find it unusual for a firm's trading desk to be active in a stock that has been upgraded or downgraded. I would expect it. That said, for their personal accounts, ML employees have to wait 24 hours before they can act on a stock that has had a ratings change. It is not uncommon for ML sell-side analysts to disagree with the portfolio managers and buy-side analysts in the asset management division. Typically, the asset mgmt side thinks it has access to better information. I don't quite understand ML's coverage of SNDK. Even in the very beginning it was handled strangely. Nevertheless, a 2-1 rating is pretty high. In fact, ML's Accumulate and Neutral-rated chip stocks are mostly killing the Buy-rated stocks in performance this year. Instead of trying to prove a scam, I think there is a lot of questionable material in the research itself. I'd imagine that a skillful litigator could bring some of the analysts to their knees pretty easily.

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (18404)	1/23/2001 10:50:06 PM
From: LemonHead	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

This is a relatively new idea--that an influential person or firm intentionally manipulates the stock price so as to take advantage of it for buying or selling. I may be taking this out of context, but I think intentional was written in the first day of the first market. IMHO Keith

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (18404)	1/24/2001 7:36:38 AM
From: limtex	Respond to of 60323

Art - Sorry to disagreebut if the US Goevernment Agencies decide to make and enforce a law agianst ordinary law abiding people they can do it easily. The only poeple they can't enforce laws against are the drug dealers. Just about everyone else is powerless against a determined agency. If the SEC wanted to stop this fraud they could do it this very afternoon. That they do not do it speaks to their obvious and clear intent to have no interest in doing it. Best regards, L