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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: donald sew who wrote (13445)	8/1/2001 2:10:04 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

Seems that every customer should be entitled to a full rebate of every commission ever charged. Paying a fee to a professional in exchange for services implies that the professional will attempt to do work in favor of the client. In this case the client pays a fee to bet against the professional ..

To: donald sew who wrote (13445)	8/1/2001 10:13:29 PM
From: isopatch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

Don. 1 step toward ending W.S. screwing the public. Worked for a major house as a broker for 6 yrs. in the 70s and early 80s. During that time, and since, have discussed the abuse of the investing public aka "fleecing the lambs" on various occasions with pros working the buy as well as the sell side of the biz. IMHO, one of the most important reasons major W.S. brokers operate as they do is the conflict of interest inherent in the firms competing with their customers for market profits. In addition to IPOs, secondaries, mergers and acquisitions, ML, Pru, GS...the whole lot of them have large "in house" trading departments whose sole function is to maximize profits trading the firms own capital. They block position stocks, bonds and derivatives both long and short. Surprise, surprise....the same stocks on which their research departments regularly "advises" the public. There's no possible way you're going to get objective, unbiased advice from those analysts. The public is going to be manipulated as much as possible to maximize the firms profits. And it's hardly a recent phenomenon. As far back as I can determine? It's been "biz as usual" as long as we've had a stock market! The most direct way to deal with this inherent conflict is to just make it illegal for firms to trade for their own account. Period. No exceptions, no gimmicks. What are the chances that will happen, say you? Well....slim and none, say I. In the context of the legalized bribery now built into political campaign finance, the W.S. community would flood Congress with enough "soft money" to float the Titanic if that were necessary to protect their little con game. The bill would never get out of committee. If anyone here thinks I'm being overly pessimistic and believe that the environment favors putting an end to in house trading, consider this. The entire subject is taboo in the financial press and media. When was the last time you've heard it covered by them??? And as a result, only a small percentage of the current investing public even knows their broker is trading against them. JMVVHO Isopatch