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 (8218)	7/24/2001 10:17:05 AM
From: HandsOn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Good to see You back.

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/24/2001 3:33:34 PM
From: William	Respond to of 17683

Nice job with the interview with Stanley O'Neal, Ted. William

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/24/2001 3:34:25 PM
From: Gut Trader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Dude----Nice try on new Merril Ceo.

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/24/2001 3:53:28 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, Forget the nay sayers, I am glad you're back! When allowed to pick my schedule, I picked mornings because you are much better than the hair club twits. Yes, you provide balance.

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/24/2001 4:08:40 PM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

I don't wanna get that far ahead of myself! :^) Regarding Pissani's report of a buyer's strike on the floor of the NYSE -- bull! I am glad you persisted with your doubtful line of questioning about that excuse, which I consider to be a poor one, no matter what the market makers or traders say..... There is plenty of selling going on for the Dow to be down approximately 183 points and the S&P -19.39....

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/24/2001 7:48:53 PM
From: Joseph Beltran	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, With all due respect, how can you let that new merril v.p. just get up there on national t.v. and boldly claim that there are "no problems" with merril's analysts credibility? That's exactly the attitude that merril analysts took when they came on cnbc and boldly hyped their stocks with your network's blessing. There is a problem: the problem is that analysts at these brokerages have an implicit and explicit conflict of interest which cannot be reconciled or dealt with by the candy-coated measures that the brokerages are trying to sell the public on. How you can possibly let him get away with saying that blodgett didn't do anything wrong???!!!!!!!! You cannot waste opportunities like that to eductae the public. The scoundrel deserves to be cross-examined with toughness, otherwise they will continued to defraud the public.

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/25/2001 1:26:49 AM
From: Berney	Respond to of 17683

TD, Okay, I'll wait for January?? Isn't the real problem differentiating yourselves from a CNN headline news that repeats everything every half hour! Can you not get too close to the source? When some 16% of the NYSE was still down, it took Maria to remind Bob that IBM had not yet traded. I surely do not envy your job -- how can we be close to the source without being unduly influenced by the source? Consider the problem of whether Madison Ave was created on Wall St or the alternative? Berney

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/25/2001 4:24:57 PM
From: straight life	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Just in passing turned on the tube yesterday and Pissani-the-real-estate-reporter who's now an expert on equities (he calls Bill Griffith, 'William' and probably thinks that one affectation lends him all the gravitas necessary to do his job adequately) had evidently been reporting on a "buyer's strike on the floor of the NYSE"! You had turned to do an interview with some hack from Griswald inc.(?) when I tuned in; you said you thought there was some real selling going on (duh). This 'expert' then used the whole of the interview to blame and rage about how Reg FD is the lone culprit for this bad market; his knickers were all in a twist about how he and the rest of the wallstreet thieves can no longer trade on advanced knowledge of corporate developments. His 'point' was that corporate officers are fearful of releasing any information because of FD. You let him get away with this claptrap unchallenged, which is one reason I watch as seldom as possible. FD levels the playing field but slightly. It might do it a little more than that if there was any enforcement but there isn't. Corporate officers are allowed to release any information any time through announcements, releases etc., there just shouldn't be any favoritism shown to pet analysts and the like. As to the reason the market sucks? Well, there's no good news but there is plenty of bad news (not 'no news', griswald). How's that for a reason? Want to interview me? ps- That last one was a joke, of course: I'm not available for interviews.

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/26/2001 9:42:17 AM
From: HandsOn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

FWIW Ted WCOM met first call est. of .20, Costello did all He could to try and slam WCOM. He is obviously biased against WCOM, TOTALLY unprofessional imo.

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/26/2001 12:27:50 PM
From: Canuck Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, let me give you two kudos. 1. For taking Bob Pisani to task over the "buyer's strike" nonsense. This euphemism is of course an adjunct of the "trillions waiting in the wings" mantra being spun by the bulls. Those trillions of household debt holding up the market are not mentioned nearly as often. 2. For pointing out how ludicrous a downgrade from "buy" to "long term accumulate" is. I know you're not alone in pointing out the self serving, and often cowardly behaviour of analysts, but they won't issue a sell rating and so neither should we. Speaking of analysts, I like the suggestion that they should be forced to own the stocks they pick, making the moves AFTER the recommendations hit the airwaves. Furthermore, may I make a couple of other modest suggestions? If they return to the show after their previous picks have dropped more than 20% , they must appear in pleated skirts and pompoms (e.g., "We still love EXDS"). If they're down more than 40%, dress em in rags, starting with Cramer. CD

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/26/2001 6:33:01 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Respond to of 17683

Martha did pretty well today! Yesterday she sounded like she was up all night the night before. It's not an easy job. Very few people can do it well.

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	7/30/2001 4:06:20 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

thepetitionsite.com[partner_userID]=296602445&sign[memberID]=296602445&sign[partnerID]=1&sign[password]=&sign[firstname]=Richard&sign[lastname]=Harmon&sign[email]=r.l.harmon%40worldnet.att.net&sign[orgname]=&sign[age]=0&sign[gender1m]=0&sign[address]=&sign[city]=Broomfield&sign[state]=CO&sign[zip]=80020&sign[country]=us&sign[mask_flags]=1

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	8/3/2001 8:06:39 AM
From: Margaret Mateer	Respond to of 17683

hi Ted. any chance you're still reading this thread? the AJC interview defied even my jaded expectations. she told people to lighten up on tech? and when exactly was that? hoho. here are her recommendations from Nov 27 and the results (prices are close but not exact): DOX - 60 to 46 EMC - 80 to 19.91 SLR - 50 to 17.53 GLW - 70 to 15.87 CSCO - 53 to 19.60 SUNW - 40 to 16.84 ITWO - 60 to 9.33 VRTS - 120 to 42.28 and, as my friend, Melf the Elf says, "Those were her GOOD picks. They're only down about 64%. Her October 3, 2000 picks are currently down about 74% (numbers are rounded): BEAS went from 73 to 22 CSCO went from 57 to 20 EMC went from 96 to 20 JNPR went from 200 to 27 NTAP went from 122 to 12 ORCL went from 39 to 19." soooooooo, how is it that Consuelo did not know this? AJC's tech picks were wildly ballyhooed on CNBC! and now she says the worst is over?? ooooooooo, I get it - all this pumping is not because they're dumping. they really think we should buy these stocks so we can participate in the Sept/Oct RUN-UP! hoho. do ya think it might be time to have a TA on who could provide counterbalance to this pathetic shill job? CNBC is not making any progress towards becoming a credible business broadcast imo. regards, Peggy

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	8/7/2001 3:18:25 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, why isn't CNBC talking about rumor of Greenspan stepping down? Better yet, put this name forward for next Fed head: Lawrence Kudlow Lawrence Kudlow - RA-RA-RA

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	8/10/2001 12:22:59 PM
From: AugustWest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, tell Bonnie(sp)B. her hair looks good today. sincerely

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	8/11/2001 6:44:45 PM
From: Joan Osland Graffius	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, I am curious as to when CNBC is going to start asking their guests when the "top is in" for each of these bear market rallies. <g> Joan

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	8/14/2001 9:12:36 PM
From: Investor Clouseau	Respond to of 17683

Ted, enjoyed "The Edge" tonight. I'm also considering changing my alias to "Mr. Licky" in honor of your show. IMO, everyone likes humor. Also, tell Ron and Sue I liked their piece with Kudlow, Cramer and Hymowitz (sounds like a law firm). Unscripted segments like that are a true reflection of what's happening in the markets. IC

To: Ted David who wrote (8218)	8/17/2001 8:59:48 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 17683

Ted, Ted, Ted, Caught you on The Edge last night with the wife. You should be DEEPLY ashamed of the exchange your performance brought about. I commented you should never have dogged it as hard. The wife,though, was pleased to see you could cut the mustard,that you did have such relish for your job, but disliked your being such a hot dog. thanks for the grins and the grimace, keep up the good work in what many view as bad times.