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 : The Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (10096)	5/1/2002 12:00:10 AM
From: Allan C.	Respond to of 12617

OK, I am reaching here... Suppose I am a representative for a civil engineering firm, and a contractor brings our company a design for a bridge. It ends up on my desk. The company will get more lucrative business from this contractor if this project is quickly approved and I will get a nice bonus, so I approve it. Then I e-mail by buddies and tell them what a POS design it was and if it stays up five years it will be a miracle. The bridge collapses and I issue an apology which, for some reason, the family of the deceased thinks is quite lame. (but I still get to keep the porshe) The analogy is weak, I know. But people thought when they took advice from ML, they were getting professional advice. Yeah, it could be wrong, but if so it was a mistake rather than deceit. I assume when I take advice of a professional, I am paying for their honest expert opinion, not what side deal they are profiting from. (OK, I don't really assume that. I don't trust anybody)

To: LPS5 who wrote (10096)	5/1/2002 12:15:07 AM
From: Bob Kim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12617

LPS5, I've highlighted problems with ML research on SI since 1999, well before the existence of any emails. I think the emails are helpful to bring a case, but don't view them as a smoking gun. The way I see it is if the research was unfit, then it was unfit, period. It seems the more common train of thought is along the lines of saying the emails somehow unmasked a sinister conflict of interest with investment banking with the apparent conclusion that the research was unfit regardless of whether or not it was ever actually determined to be unfit.