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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave who wrote (166904)	6/23/2002 1:01:54 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

"I believe the majority of "dot coms" were over-hyped." I'll take "somewhat". :) But note I said that the dereg should have been contemplated in analyzing the "stupidity". The first question an experienced investor would ask is what are the legal rights, how are they secured and most important, what are the barriers to entry. What was not done by the wire houses who pumped the companies was disclose, pure and simple. Let's start with this assumption: No body knows for sure what will be successful, BUT what you would like to know is that the company for instance has no legal right to its product, (but if I as a broker tell you that our attorneys have read the Tele Dereg, and that they have determined that there are loopholes that the RBOCS can drive a truck through, and we are smart enough to know this but if we tell you that you wont buy the stock) that ALL the money it has is from the very house that is pumping the deal, that without that loan, the company would not exit, that the minute the stock is sold the proceeds will pay back the loan, that there are "overallotments" which are not properly disclosed which will allow the house to dump THE DAY of the IPO, rather than wait the six months for the insider dump, and on and on. The reason this went on (and in Merrills case they had the phone calls calling the stock a "Piece of ShT" DURING the offering), was that the law is that attorneys could not sue brokerage houses, the law was that attorneys could not sue accountants for conflict of interest. THIS WAS WRONG and would have resulted in less of what Greenspan missleadingly called, irrational exhuberance. Levitt knew, I knew, Merrill Lynch knew, Arthur Anderson knew and the Banks and Greenspan, knew. People have a right not to be defrauded, and disclosures which mislead are not disclosures.