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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (153038)	2/23/2002 11:38:18 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Les, this is something Dr. Kurt Richebacher has been screaming about for years. The earnings reported to the marks, er, shareholders, are nowhere close to the earnings reported in either tax statements or in the GDP account numbers. Guess which are higher? <VBG>

To: Les H who wrote (153038)	2/23/2002 11:41:33 AM
From: Petrol	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

From pages 292-4, Reminiscences of a Stock Operator: "...of course, the first to see the breakers ahead were the insiders. They became aware of the real condition of the company and reduced their holdings of the stock. On their selling as well as on their non-support, the price of New England's gilt-edged railroad stock began to yield. Questions were asked, and explanations were demanded as usual and the usual explanations were promptly forthcoming. "Prominent insiders" declared that there was nothing wrong that they knew of and that the decline was due to reckless bear selling. So the "investors" of New England kept their holdings of New York, New Haven & Hartford Stock. Why shouldn't they? Didn't insiders say there was nothing wrong and cry bear selling?..." "In the meantime the promised squeeze of the bears did not come but new low records did. The insider selling became more urgent and less disguised. Nevertheless public spirited men in Boston were denounced as stock-jobbers and demagogues for demanding a genuine explanation for the stock's deplorable decline that meant appalling losses to everybody in New England..." That historic break from $255 to $12 a share never was and never could have been a bear drive. It was not started and it was not kept up by bear operations. The insiders sold right along and always at higher prices than they could have done if they had told the truth or allowed the truth to be told.." "In a bull market and particularly in booms the public at first makes money which it later loses simply by overstaying the bull market. This talk of "bear raids" helps them to overstay. The public should beware of explanations that explain only what unnamed insiders wish the public to believe."