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 (15795)	8/19/2001 9:01:47 PM
From: profit_guy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

(a copy of an email that i sent to CNBC today...it will be interesting to see how they respond...sent to Squawk@CNBC.com ; MarketWatch@CNBC.com ; PowerLunch@CNBC.com ; StreetSigns@CNBC.com ; MarketWrap@CNBC.com ; BizCenter@CNBC.com ; MarketWeek@CNBC.com) CNBC, Firstly, I'd like to commend CNBC on their efforts for more transparency when interviewing fund managers, analysts, and other assorted gurus. However, imo, asking these people if they have a position in the stock they are "recommending" is only the first step. I have a suggestion that will surely provide even more transparency: I think the next time that one of these guests appear on your show and wants to talk about a stock, that the CNBC interviewer should ask what their entry price is on the stock that they are "recommending" (asking how many shares they have is perhaps too personal, and maybe even irrelevant). But, by asking what their entry price is on say CSCO (currently just under $17), we will know before they even open their mouth where they are coming from, and what they are going to say! i.e. If they said "my average price on CSCO is $40", we'd already know in advance that they are speaking from desperation, and your viewers would see their "recommendation" with skepticism as hyping a bad call. On the hand, if they said "my average price on CSCO is $14, when I bot near the April low", then your viewers may then see the same recommendation as reinforcing a shrewd call. Conversely, if they were short the stock, knowing their entry would have the same value. And lastly, though I am sure it would displease some CNBC guests, I think when bringing on people such as Joe Battapaglia, and Abby Joseph Cohen, etc, that a chart showing the various levels of the indices when they made their table-pounding calls to buy would be quite enlightening. Fortunately, I have not lost money on any of these calls, but unfortunately, many are likely to have their retirements severely effected. Regards, (a CNBC viewer)

To: donald sew who wrote (15795)	8/19/2001 10:02:17 PM
From: The Freep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

Don -- in regards to your high/lows work, I know that Zeev Hed was doing some research lately on the number of Naz issues that have been delisted since the start of the year. I seem to recall that there's over 500 fewer stocks on the Naz now than on Jan 1. That's a LOT, though it's not clear how many have been removed due to mergers vs. outright delisting and whatnot. Anyway, it is possible that this impacts your new low figure substantially, as I'd guess a lot of those stocks were reaching new yearly lows on a daily basis. Without them in the gene pool, it's likely that you'll not see the type of collapse on the now lows that would exist if they were all still around, heading down to 1 cent. Not that I know what to do with this info, mind you. I'll leave that to you and Brook :-) the freep