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 : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/10/2001 11:05:56 AM
From: Bob Kim	Respond to of 17683

Ted, And when necessary, it is our job to ask these people the tough questions and hold their feet to the fire. Sometimes the questions don't have to be tough. Some good questions for Henry Blodget: Given that you have the same 2-2 rating on them, do you really believe that MSFT and IVIL (or ATHM, ICGE, SFE, EWBX) have the same investment potential? How do you reconcile the fact that your current rating on MSFT would have made it the absolute lowest rated stock in your coverage one year ago? A few weeks ago you raised your price target on AOL from $62.50 to $65, after having previously dropped it from $90. Why did you drop it back to a midpoint $62.50 last week? When you upgraded HOMS to a Buy rating a year ago you set a $110 price target, what is the status of that price target? What is the status of your $100 price target on AMZN? Time for people to take some responsibility for their actions and stop shooting the messengers, no? Many times, CNBC is more than the messenger. Here's one example. Back in November, CNBC was highlighting that Merrill Lynch was reiterating its Buy rating on DELL and raising the price target to $42. The bigger story was probably that the analyst had been belittled on Merrill Lynch's morning call. His ML colleagues were questioning why he kept a Buy rating on DELL.

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/10/2001 12:07:04 PM
From: opalapril	Respond to of 17683

Mr. David, "stop shooting the messengers" It needs to be acknowledged that business news journalists more than any other kind except perhaps Hollywood gossip columnists make the "news" as much as they report it. Consider: You don't often read "The Japanese government fell today after Dan Rather quoted a dissident legislator as saying the prime minister is a fool." But it does make the news when "Got-Rocks analyst Harlan Stockfinger said today on CNBC that he thinks high-flying Widgets.com is worth less than a penny a share." To be sure, one root cause is the way so many people (and plenty of fund managers for that matter) are influenced by presumed expert commentary as they choose their investments. But, as a prominent TV personality you know might say, "stop shooting the viewers." The selection of which analysts and guests CNBC makes time for -- and which they do not -- in itself is an editorial decision with potentially heavy consequences. The absence of, or the narrowly limited slivers of time given to, some analysts can be as conspicuous or misleading as the seeming omnipresence of others. For example, I don't watch CNBC much but I recall very little air time given to Fidelity fund managers over the years, and certainly nothing in proportion to FIDO's 15% control, on average, of all listed equities on the U.S. stock exchanges.

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/10/2001 1:32:05 PM
From: Joseph Beltran	Respond to of 17683

Ted, CNBC is providing these analysts with a forum to express their so called "expert opinions". It seems to me that CNBC has a responsibility to critically examine these analysts about their "picks" and potential conflicts of interest. this is something that was routinely NOT DONE last year during the "mania" and although some small effort appears to be underway at CNBC to act more responsibly in that regard, in my humble opinion it is not enough. Take for instance the interview last night between Bartiromo and Meeker. Meeker appeared to state that during the "mania" last year she was recommending AMZN, YHOO, EBAY, etc. simply because their stock prices were going up....Bartiromo let Meeker's comment go without even a remote hint of disbelief or follow-up. Then she went on to ask her about her "new" picks. In short, a valuable opportunity to have Meeker "justify" and "explain" her positions last year was missed. Nor was there any questioning in regards to her (Meeker's) implicit conflicts of interest. I'm an attorney and when you speak of holding someone's "feet to the fire" I think in terms of rigorous cross-examination for the purpose of uncovering all relevant information. These interviews, although well intentioned, fall far, far short of providing viewers with any meaningful understanding or appreciation of what the real market is all about. Tell Mark Haines to put his lawyer "hat" on and go for it.

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/10/2001 2:29:00 PM
From: Steven Osborne	Respond to of 17683

Ted: Have on the show whomever you want. While a guest of repute can move the market, none are bigger than the market. The gurus come & go. With this cycle we've seen the likes of HB, AJC and some others just prove we're all human. Having an analyst or fund manager who sells short might be a good balance, noting the risks are equal or greater than going long. Viewers would bet a better balance than always "buy & hold". Thanks

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/10/2001 2:39:06 PM
From: HandsOn	Respond to of 17683

Agreed re taking responsibility for one's own actions, but Ron Insana and Maria really seem to fan the flames re doom and gloom on days like Yesterday. I respect Yourself, Joe, Bob and Tyler and all the news editors. Thanks for taking time to post here, that was Too Funny when You came out to Joe with that wrinkled shirt the other day. BTW I have a crush on Bonnie <GG>.

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/10/2001 2:55:39 PM
From: Bill/WA	Respond to of 17683

Ted, What are the chances Fred Hickey of "The High-Tech Strategist" will appear on TV? I know he has given interviews to reporters, but I don't recall him ever appearing on TV. TIA

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/10/2001 6:15:24 PM
From: manalagi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted: Mucho gratias for that speedy reply to my post. I just want you to know how much you mean to us. Early Saturday morning and you took time to answer questions. Ref: Henry Blodget. I don't think I can compare Henry to Abbey Cohen. She has a golden reputation, she is smart and rightly so to occupy such a high position. What is Henry's reputation aside from predicting that Amazon would reach $ 400, which some believe that it was there due to the hype of Henry and not because of any fundamental of the company. If a surgeon from Cedar Sinai keeps amputating the wrong leg, should we keep inviting him to present his knowledge about surgery so that we can get the view of Cedar Sinai's hospital? Everyone knows that Henry Blodget is practically consistently wrong with his picks: down 79% on the average. He even glorify Amazon Cash position on the balance sheet while ignoring Accounts Payable. Should not CNBC invite Merrill Lynch top management and ask him why ML keeps Henry as senior internet analyst? Is it not a dark spot on Merrill Lynch reputation? While I have benefited from Henry's hype on Amazon by shorting the stock, I am hoping that CNBC does not just have one sided opinion on Amazon. How about giving both sides of the story?. Invite Henry and one extremely knowledgable person on Amazon to give a counter opinion. Let them both get interviewed at the same time. Now that is telling from both sides of the coin. I am willing to bet that Henry's analyses will be exposed as completely wrong. The name of that person is Glenn Rudoph, a highly respected member of SI. He has recently been interviewed by Scott Cohen. How about it Ted? Once again, many thanks Ted. Manalagi

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/11/2001 10:19:03 AM
From: Margaret Mateer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Dear Ted, thank you for taking the time to correspond with your viewers - I think we all appreciate your willingness to listen to our views... the crux of the issue about the bull-biased view that cnbc has allowed to dominate their broadcasting is that it has never been balanced by the opposite (and sadly, accurate) bearish view - there are so many excellent technicians, market theorists, hedge fund managers, (btw, even the ""top guns at the top firms" are bears! - you don't think their money is in this market, do you?) that could have been interviewed regularly to provide balance to the cnbc's bullish broadcasting bias. Your audience has realized that cnbc tacitly allows brokerage firms (et.all.)to use this valuable airtime to promote their own interest which IS selling their own inventory at a higher price to the cnbc viewer. Had cnbc required that there be equal weight in terms of air time given to both the bull and the bear argument, your viewers might have reason to think that cnbc's journalistic purpose is an unbiased one. Had cnbc required a sharper edge to the questioning of their guests....ex: Abby Joseph Cohen was allowed, just this past week, to come on and "pump" this market with her bullish views just 2 days ahead of 2 very important Goldman Saks IPOs - we all knew that but cnbc did not mention it in the interview! Perhaps you think there is a new cynicism that is growing among your viewers but I think what you're seeing is the realization that, for those still invested in this market, there are still many hard and sad lessons ahead. It would have been an achievement if cnbc had been willing and able to provide counterpoint ahead of the decline - perhaps cnbc will take the opportunity now to reposition itself to become a serious and impartial business broadcast during and apres la deluge! This is a cyclical bear market in the naz, we are in a recession, it will become a global recession and we will not recover for quite some time to come. Yes there will be vicious bear market rallies - cnbc would do its viewers (and your cnbc's reputation) a favor to give equal weight to the bearish and bullish potential of each "new rally". Time for cnbc to make the hard decisions. A year from now, I hope that your viewers will be able to say that cnbc's serious and balanced business reporting saved them from financial ruin. Sincerely, Margaret Mateer

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/12/2001 1:10:40 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 17683

how about Jack Thompson from HM next please?

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/12/2001 2:53:19 PM
From: James H	Respond to of 17683

Ted, I do thank you for at least having an open mind and responding to the public at large here on SI. Blodgett is the poster child for the internet mania. His self fulfilling "call" was for me, the top of the mania. Calling for a 400 price target, while ignoring fundamentals that a first year Econ major would have questioned, was an act bordering on the criminal. "As I have begun to say on the air several times a day... KNOW YOU OWN RISK TOLERANCE, TIME HORIZON AND THE SUITABILITY of your investments. YOU are the ultimate arbiter of what is done with your money... not our guests and not CNBC." Perhaps this should have been the mantra last year and not after the 60 percent NASDAQ loss. I can still remember Joe Kernan (SP?) last year, making fun of the bears and noting the big run up one would have missed by taking their advice. I don't hear Joe making fun of the bulls with their many "this is the bottom" calls. Would the average investor have been better off by listening to Blodgett or Buffett over the last couple of years? Again, thanks for the feedback and taking the time to listen and respond. I'm not a fan of CNBC, but I do admire your willingness to listen and respond. Regards.

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/14/2001 4:58:39 PM
From: Bald Man from Mars	Respond to of 17683

<<it is our job to ask these people the tough questions and hold their feet to the fire.>> okay, Ted, you ask the tough questions and if she is a good looking lady, I will hold her foot ...

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/15/2001 2:21:59 PM
From: Brasco One	Respond to of 17683

those idiots were the ones that caused the choas on cnbcasino.

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/15/2001 4:50:39 PM
From: BillyJoe McCallister	Respond to of 17683

I don't know Ted, when someone loses all their credibility I would think you would no longer have them on, especially Blodget and Meeker, pumping Amazon and other internets, two of the biggest losers going. Cheers

To: Ted David who wrote (7416)	3/29/2001 8:17:11 PM
From: Logain Ablar	Respond to of 17683

Ted: It is never too late to change but I think your response was either self serving or naive. I think as an ancor you have to ask are your a reporter or an entertainment host. CNBC holds itself out as a news vehicle for investing and business. It does not promote itself as entertainment. Because of this CNBC has an implied responsibility to its viewers. You or those who remain employed will find this out. I will use Joe Battipaglia as an example. On asking the hard questions has anyone on your show pointed out Joe Battipaglia was bullish throughout 1987 just as he was last year on the NAZ and techstocks thorughout the downturn. Is this pointed out to readers prior to his interviews? You are holding him out as an expert technical analyst yet this is not pointed out. As for people taking responsibility for their actions. 90% of the people investing follow the advice of financial analyst. When they see financial analyst's on your show aren't you holding them out as experts. As an example last week I watched Suzie ??, your mutual fund guest commentator (I think Wednesday nights) and she was indicating people should move into the market now and over time, she mentioned 4 years, they would recoup their losses (she was indicating 100% gains, I admit I wasn't paying close enought attention). This is CNbC's first lengthly down turn and we all know bears do not help generate ad revenues but from a long term perspective your producers should realize they have been over biased on one side. Good luck and just remember the market bubble was created by the credit bubble. The credit bubble has not burst yet. Once this occurs (right now the fed is pumping in enough liquidity to keep it afloat) we will have bottomed. It will be more painful than what has been experienced so far. Tim