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: Ibexx who wrote (128971)	3/3/2001 7:07:25 PM
From: Bob Kim	Respond to of 186894

Ibexx, I'm not sure what you are looking for. But, here's a stab. The article itself is like a lot of the others I've read, many of the details are glossed over or just plain wrong. Based on what I've read about the arbitration, I don't think it will get very far, however, it could focus unwanted attention on Blodget's research. A good lawyer could probably make ML squirm. I don't think that the information trail left in the wake of Blodget's propensity to give interviews will help him.

To: Ibexx who wrote (128971)	3/3/2001 10:54:32 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I am not sure what you are asking either, no investor with half an ounce of brains would invest in anything Blodget recommended unless you consider only the distribution houses his real customers. The suit which the WSJ seems to portray as one small action is a massive class action law suit asking damages of at least 400 Million dollars, I believe. The lead attorney is Jacob Zmansky. The article sounds like a puff piece, a spin control press release which could have been directly written by the Merrill Lynch Sales Staff to divert stockholder inquiry.