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 : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rande Is who wrote (47896)	2/23/2001 9:55:10 AM
From: baddtiming	Respond to of 57584

ALAN were are you....ale ale Oxen free...

To: Rande Is who wrote (47896)	2/23/2001 11:05:41 AM
From: john722	Respond to of 57584

Rande <Analyst Coverage Disclosures> What a Great idea. That would really level the field for the investors.

To: Rande Is who wrote (47896)	2/23/2001 11:05:57 AM
From: Kanetsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

Rande, I have to agree with Keith on this one, though I applaud you for actually proposing a solution instead of just complaining. The problem is, all those regulations and paperwork are a nightmare, requiring new staff and more lawyers. They will basically paralyze Wall Street and probably force them to just stop offering recommendations at all. And no doubt they will find some other way to achieve their goals. Being in the futures business I am subject to so many meaningless filings sometimes I wonder if it is even worth it to comply; it makes me want to find new work. Large firms have whole staffs committed to keeping firms compliant. All new regulations are well meaning, but the majority end up causing much more work than any good they accomplish, other than full employment for lawyers. The games been played this way for years, people should learn to play it or put their money in Mutual Funds managed by the people you claim to be basically cheating. Caveat Emptor, nobody forces anybody to take a drink, smoke a cigarette or make a trade.

To: Rande Is who wrote (47896)	2/23/2001 11:32:49 AM
From: Joe Lyddon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Each time an analyst issues an upgrade or a downgrade on a particular stock; raises or lowers targets; begins coverage on a stock; discusses a covered stock in a featured media interview; . . . their employer should be required by SEC Regulation, to file a simple form within 7 days of the event. What if: The employer has subsidiaries that are doing the real trading? The parent company, of the employer, is doing the real trading? Overseas companies involved in the real trading? The simple solution starts to get more complex. . . Just some thoughts on the subject. . . All in all, I think it would be a very good idea to have something like this happening! Joe

To: Rande Is who wrote (47896)	2/23/2001 1:29:10 PM
From: Bob Kim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Rande, "We have this type of tracking presently... . . . but actual positions by various brokerages are the unknown factor. . . and are widely known to be the true reason for their actions." The tracking on my site (soon to go on permanent hiatus) highlights that the stock price, not fundamentals, is often the biggest driver of the research calls of ML tech analysts. I don't think it is particulary necessary to tie in the actual positions held by the firm and I don't believe they are a factor at a place such as ML. Research calls can be bad just because the research sucked in the first place or there wasn't really any thing behind the call except the analyst's wishful thinking. The trading desks and retail brokers do their own handicapping of the analysts. In the past, the ML analyst covering DELL has been mocked on the morning call about his Buy rating reiterations, but CNBC doesn't tell you that part, they just tell you he raised his price target and reiterated his Buy rating. The fact is there are laws and regulations already in place that should have shelved some of the research calls before they even made it out the door, but there doesn't seem to be any urgency to make sure the research is worthy of going out; the only urgency seems to be to get it out fast.