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: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (96057)	4/18/2001 7:44:41 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

<I think I convinced him that analysts can not hide behind the firm brokers as they are all CFA's and when it comes to retirement money the rule are changing drastically. > Has CFA ever taken action against an analyst for a written report??? You are aware that it is simply an analyst association and no legal standing right? DAK

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (96057)	4/18/2001 10:32:27 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Haim, i'm pretty sure their behinds are covered...many times i thought that certain occurrences would invite scrutiny from the SEC, like for instance a LEH analyst upgrading an internet POS stock to 'strong buy' in March last year, and LEH selling its own sizeable position in the stock right into the upgrade, not far from the ATH (needless to say, the stock has collapsed to near worthless from 150 bucks since). it was even mentioned in a Barron's story - nothing happened. or when Morgan Stanley was caught manipulating NAZ stocks by posting spoof bids and offers for several YEARS they get a slap on the wrist in the form of a 500K fine, admitting nothing. no, i think WS has the game sewn up...the congressional hearings regarding the investment trusts of the 1920's went nowhere too...in spite of the strong public disenchantment with the banksters at the time. breach of fiduciary duty is nowadays regarded as a pecadillo far and wide in the financial world - see the casual mention of the "window dressing" (tape painting) practice in the media, as if it were perfectly normal. i mean who would object to fund managers saving their bonuses using other people's money, right? this is not to say i want to discourage you from pursuing this further - it's a good thing that someone cares. only i think you'll be lucky if you actually get anywhere....