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: Bob Kim who wrote (8231)	7/24/2001 10:36:48 PM
From: Joseph Beltran	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Bob, The conflict of interest and the inadequacy of Blodgett's research go hand in hand. The fact that there is an explicit conflict of interest means that there are (and cannot be) appropriate "standards" for the research. If I, as an attorney, were asked to represent both parties in a two party dispute I would obviously be faced with a conflict of interest. Under no circumstances could I rationalize it, agree to represent both, and make the situation "right". It would be wrong for me to undertake that representation under any circumstances (yes, even if both parties agreed to it). I'm not even beginning to address issues such as the fiduciary duties which a broker owes to the company and to the brokers client's. Suffice it to say that brokers don't have the first clue as to what a fiduciary is or what responsibilities stem from that status. The situation is as ludicrous as a real estate agent purporting to represent both the buyer and the seller in the same transaction. It cannot be done (honestly) and that's all there is to it.