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: willcousa who wrote (47630)	6/6/2001 11:51:02 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

3 ways to read analyst numbers 1. they exist for institutional advantage at the expense of retail clients 2. Firm trading profits using pre-knowledge of analyst calls 3. Herd mentality--no one analyst wants to go out on a limb and 4. combo of any of the above Its unbelievable to me that not one firm even approached S&P results. It boggles the mind. I guess this is what Bogle saw with mutual funds as well when he started pumping Index Funds.

To: willcousa who wrote (47630)	6/6/2001 12:18:40 PM
From: Michael Young	Respond to of 70976

I'm not sure that is really an issue. I doubt analysts really have a clue if the firm has a position in a stock at any given time. Analysts don't try to help their firm's trading position. The conflict of interest is that they tout stocks in an effort to land i-banking business. MIKE

To: willcousa who wrote (47630)	6/6/2001 2:16:37 PM
From: John Trader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Willcousa, It would be easy to make them say if they were just adding or selling before the rating change, but it would be more complicated to gain knowledge of what they did right after making the upgrade/downgrade. I am sure there must be some way of working this out, however. It would sure change things if we had this information. They would no longer be able to move the markets in the same way if their firm was trading the other way. That would then lead to more emphasis on analysts who are puttin their firm's money where their mouth is, and also to firms that only give advice and do not trade. (Briefing.com and Value Line, are two examples I think). John

To: willcousa who wrote (47630)	6/6/2001 2:26:30 PM
From: James Calladine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

DECLARATION OF INTEREST: It is pretty common ethical practice, (as a Director of a company) for example, to declare their interest in any transation. As has been pointed out, analysts have, from time immemorial, been tools used by the brokerage firms to BUILD TRAFFIC (in various ways, for various purposes). It should be a REQUIREMENT that every analyst's recommendation state: -- whether his firm (or its parent) is LONG the stock -- whether his firm (or its parent) is SHORT the stock -- whether his firm (or related companies) make a market in the stock. If those rules applied, there would be many fewer analysts and many fewer recommendations. You could then also more directly "read" the real agenda that was behind the "recommendation". Will I live to see this in my lifetime? With a Republican President---not a chance! With a Democratic President--little chance! Too many investment firms donate too much money to too many politicians. The real losers? The poor dumb bastards who believe that analysts are giving them the straight goods. Namaste! Jim