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: David Smith who wrote (10534)	4/25/2002 10:08:32 PM
From: Timetobuy	Respond to of 17683

Have you looked at stocks that get upgraded? In the first place, there is usually no real reason. Maybe valuation is cited or maybe something like "buy ahead of earnings" or there is upside. They gap up and within days are back down where they were or lower. Cnbc is good for entertainment, but the funds are the ones who rule the market ultimately and I sure as hell hope they aren't buying into Maria's breathtaking "uh, uh uh uhs".

To: David Smith who wrote (10534)	4/25/2002 11:39:22 PM
From: TWICK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

The disclosure questions are a joke. They mean nothing cause the questions are too basic, and the answers are vague. Twick

To: David Smith who wrote (10534)	4/25/2002 11:46:43 PM
From: Bob Kim	Respond to of 17683

With the recent emphasis on disclosure, the buzz in the analyst community now is that it's actually preferable in many instances to use "arm's-length" upgrades on stocks through the CNBC proxy, which don't require ANY uncomfortable or inconvenient disclosures if you don't go on the air in person. Did you make this part up for the third time?

To: David Smith who wrote (10534)	4/26/2002 2:35:20 AM
From: Toby Zidle	Respond to of 17683

A Major Disclosure Failure by David Smith?????? The next time you rant about disclosure failures at CNBC, will you also disclose that you have posted essentially identical rantings as Msgs #10369, #10410, and #10534? I consider the questions you raised to be fair game for discussion. However, a practice of posting virtually the same message in triplicate or (future) quadruplicate, in my opinion, constitutes unacceptable SPAM.

To: David Smith who wrote (10534)	4/26/2002 8:35:29 AM
From: Gamma Positive	Respond to of 17683

David, I discovered something very odd. Did you notice that on March 26, Maria reported a "breaking news" upgrade on TVX Gold (symbol TVX), a penny stock no less. The horror of it! And, without an equally lengthy disclosure and full background check nonetheless. If you ever notice this kind of blatant display of journalism again, I implore you to post it here at least, say, a dozen times or more please. I thought you had a position in TVX (well, you probably don't or you would have disclosed that, eh? ;-), so I'm surprised this one got by you and you didn't post about it. <g>