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 (10173)	5/7/2002 12:45:07 PM
From: KymarFye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12617

"the fact that there's a settlement at work - and moving slowly, at that - bears the greatest proof ("proof") that the situation is not nearly so cut-and-dried as many of you are convinced that it is." proves little or nothing, IMO. Investigations and negotiations involving billions of dollars, complex issues, potential major precedents, and multiple participants representing corporate and public interests may, on occasion, drag on a bit. Also, I can't take responsibility for each and every set of whatever convictions "many of [us]" may or may not have come to hold. That being said, certain issues do seem rather "cut-and-dried" - in particular that some at least unseemly and potentially illegal practices on the part of major Wall St. firms have been exposed. "And yet... what crime is committed in expressing a different personal opinion than that expressed in the context of discharging duties on behalf of ones' company of employ? " Your fixation, not mine - nor, as far as I can tell, the main interest of most participants in this discussion, or, for that matter, of the NYAG or any would-be regulators. "my outlook hasn't been substantially changed" Well - then the surprise I registered in the post inquiring as to what might have impressed you in the WSJ article was justified. What would therefore be unjustified would have been a condescending and presumptuous response to my query, but, then again, I guess you never know what's going to get one of those pathetic "message board posters" going.

To: LPS5 who wrote (10173)	5/7/2002 1:14:01 PM
From: John Meade	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12617

LP, your tendency to grasp on to a single trivial point and attempt to make it the all in all(the emails/private opinions as being the crime) never ceases to amaze me. Well, when you are on the unjustifiable side of a discussion you do know how to grasp at straws. (the mantle of Strawman argument king certainly goes to you) Philosophical disagreement, HA! I guess I wasn't and I will be so bold as to say most others viewing your NY, cynical, caveat emptor, securities industry employee, cheat em if you can mentality as being philosophical in nature. Jeez, you really must be dealing with a lot of guilt that you found the need to create an entire philosophy that justifies unethical behavior. The fact that there is going to be a settlement is PROOF that the situation is cut and dry. Think about it! If you want to fire off some more cheap shots you could always PM them to me as to not foul up Irby's thread anymore. John M

To: LPS5 who wrote (10173)	5/7/2002 3:44:46 PM
From: Dave O.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12617

< No, I fully comprehend the reasons for which posters on a trading- and investment-focused message board might cry for blood after two years of downtrending markets > So you're implying a bear market is why people are raving mad at Merrill? I hope that's not what you're implying. Which part of (the definition of) fraud is escaping you? Let's try another example ... you buy a house and later find out it's built on a swamp, something the real estate agent didn't tell you and later incur massive expense. The failure to disclose all factual matters would suggest fraud to me, much like the situation with Merrill and their analysts. Did they disclose all they knew about those stocks they covered? Nope. < I think the fact that there's a settlement at work - and moving slowly, at that - bears the greatest proof ("proof") that the situation is not nearly so cut-and-dried as many of you are convinced that it is. > I suppose we may see typical resolution where Merrill agrees to fines of a substantial nature and other "reforms" without admitting wrongdoing. But it is cut-and-dried IMO. Why are Merrill execs scrambling to settle ASAP before high level execs are possibly forced to appear and testify at public hearings. Could it be they want to keep a lid on things before any more gets out to the general public? Message 17431246 < what crime is committed in expressing a different personal opinion than that expressed in the context of discharging duties on behalf of ones' company of employ? > So are you suggesting that the analysts reports are all that matter and that the emails that trashed the stocks were personal opinions that are uncorrelated to the matter? If in fact you are suggesting that then it would seem clear to me that at the very least the firm was deceitful with clients. Dave