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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gottfried who wrote (47620)	6/6/2001 1:26:57 AM
From: John Trader	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Gottfried, Thanks for posting that. So the big question then is why do these analysts move the markets with their recommendations (in the same direction that is)? That has got to be a great job to have, good pay and lots of recognition for horrible performance. I wonder though, if they were not trying to manipulate the stocks for trading at their brokerage firm, or for favorable relations with the company, what then would be their track record? Institutions that don't have such conflicts of interest may have much better track records, but probably still underperform the market. John

To: Gottfried who wrote (47620)	6/6/2001 2:19:21 AM
From: StanX Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

As Casey Casan would say, stopping in here and topping the charts in the number 10 position is, #10. Lehman Brothers with losing only -7.03% over the past four years is one of our favorite stock picker. With a track record like that, they can easily loss your shirt. Compared with the, S&P 500 index 74.2% or AMAT up "what some 300%". I am currently holding some AMAT stock with a cost bases of $13.56 bought three / four years back. Stan

To: Gottfried who wrote (47620)	6/6/2001 11:09:56 AM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

If that doesn't prove some sort of manipulation I don't know what else does. Even random picks should more closely approximate the return of the index. My conclusion: These were by no means random picks--they were purposely trying to give out bad recommendations in order to have their preferred big money clients fleece those following the recommendations.

To: Gottfried who wrote (47620)	6/6/2001 11:10:02 AM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

If that doesn't prove some sort of manipulation I don't know what else does. Even random picks should more closely approximate the return of the index. My conclusion: These were by no means random picks--they were purposely trying to give out back recommendations in order to have their preferred big money clients fleece those following the recommendations. I maintain that not even an analyst making buy and sell recommendation at random would perform that badly.

To: Gottfried who wrote (47620)	6/6/2001 3:02:09 PM
From: Donald B. Fuller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Hi Gottfried "Over the same period (through last week), the S&P 500 gained about 75%. The best of the Wall Street firms — Credit Suisse First Boston — managed a return of just 7.63%, a breathtaking level of underperformance that should have every client who follows such research flocking to an index fund.< [snip]" Also confirming my own impression...again leading to my search for an analyst contrary indicator measure. We need to identify and exclude the top two, then we've got ourselves a perfect contrary indicator, IMHO... These two are gone - They're the top two overachievers... 1. Credit Suisse First Boston 6.86% 2. A.G. Edwards 4.33% Here then, is our contrary indicator list... 3. Salomon Smith Barney 0.88% 4. Merrill Lynch -1.57% 5. Morgan Stanley -2.76% 6. UBS PaineWebber -4.87% 7. Prudential -5.47% 8. Goldman Sachs -6.03% 9. Bear Stearns -6.21% 10. Lehman Brothers -7.03% Gottfried, can you chart these firms' up vs downgrades relative to AMAT and follow that along for awhile? I still think there is contrary predictive power here if we properly harness it.. Don