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: michael97123 who wrote (55039)	11/2/2001 10:43:45 AM
From: daryll40	Respond to of 70976

Here's my answer to the accountability issue. Heck, I outta NOT even post it here, just go into business being the guru police. The answer is to devise a mechanism where predictions are graded according to timing and magnitude. Each prediction must be declared at the onset as "an official prediction". Unofficial predictions should not be allowed since they are even more worthless than the official ones. Then there needs to be a 1,3, and 10 year scorecard. My guess is that longterm it would prove that no one (few?) can truly predict the markets. And if someone does rise to the top, then obviously money will get behind them and they'll get the rewards. So, if Battman is right for 5 years with predictions of annual Nasdaq rises of 1000 points, say, then he predicts another rise of 1000 points but it falls 4000 points, the magnitude of the drop would wipe out most of his gain. And he becomes defrocked and is forced to declare himself so. Same for Fleckestein. These guys are right much of the time but it's the MAGNITUDE and TIMING that makes it a crystal ball. And their ability to say "yeah, but wait until next year". Perhaps someone on here with better math skills than I can devise something like this.

To: michael97123 who wrote (55039)	11/2/2001 10:52:36 AM
From: BWAC	Respond to of 70976

<Its like the difference between violence and gratuitous violence> You're right. <When does interpetation of events etc. cross the line. What about those chip analysts like dan niles and kumar? > Oh? You mean the kings of the Monday morning strategic high profile stock call designed to stop the rally/dip in its tracks? Good old Asshock. Hard question. How about when these guys start making some common sense calls, rather than a call designed and timed for the utmost effect? Like say Tuesday before options expire. Or one day before a Fed announcement? Here's my real thought. Why do these goofs go on TV and GIVE away for free their advice, advice which their employer has to pay wages for them to generate? Why is that? Is it cause they are such nice forthright upstanding generous fellows? Is it cause the employer thinks they get fair value in return through "advertising" the firms name? Why are these firms giving away free advice? Are they hoping you will see their name on TV and say hey I must call this expert firm and do my trades? Why is it? Why the eagerness to work for free? What are the motives? And lets just not pretend that the analysts are separated from the trading floor by some regulatory wall. Nice thought, but come on? Really? Maybe all the free research reports and upgrades and downgrades are all designed to sway sentiment into a profitable position for the employer. Nah couldn't be? Cause these analysts are all fine upstanding professionals? But why? Why do they spend so much time directing their work towards an audience that doesn't pay for the service?