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: Andrew G. who wrote (71646)	2/25/2001 11:55:42 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 436258

<<I realize this may sound like heresy among the active traders here>> Well, we're hardly a representative group (of Americans)<g> The thing is, the same stuff went on in the 20's, and what was the extent of the bagholder's rebellion then? The SEC was formed (yeah, RIGHT! Great help that!<sarcasm>), which was led by Joe Kennedy! (Kinda like having Jeff Vinik, John Doerr, Jonathan Lebed or Jeff Bezos run the damn thing now). The point is (I'm wearing my cynics cap now), if that's the most that was done in response to the Great Depression, what do you suppose the chances of meaningful change occurring now are? Not that they aren't badly needed....obviously most of the participants of this thread (maybe not some of the newbies) have been burned by many of the various and sundry market manipulating techniques we all detest. But unless things in the economy get a WHOLE lot worse, we won't see changes of the type you're proposing. Regards Patron

To: Andrew G. who wrote (71646)	2/26/2001 1:34:08 AM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 436258

<Unfortunately privately held firms suffer for it too and it really doesn't have to be this way. If people want to invest, they can do so through bonds or privately held stock. Imagine if a companies net worth was based strictly on fundamentals. Heaven forbid !> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole idea of "public stock" and the exchanges is that those companies listed must disclose all this info to the public... if they were private it's "buyer beware"... I think it's a step backwards. I agree that this puts a perhaps dangerous "governmental stamp of approval" on listed companies, but to be fair, the bogus earnings numbers and dangerous hype that you allude to has been reported all thoroughout the press for years. There are many [previously] well thought out of analysts [and the KING Warren Buffet himself] who have been bearish for years and stated reasons for such till they were blue in the face. This is a socio-economic phenomena that is present during all speculative bubbles historically speaking. DAK