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 : MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT --- Can We Stop It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Gore who wrote (482)	6/26/2002 4:58:06 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 589

To draw the poker analogy out a little bit, they'll let anyone sit down at a table in vegas. A beginner can sit down with pro and not really know how much the game is stacked against him. I certainly believe that blatant deception should not be tolerated, but much of it does fall into the category of opinion. If a car dealership adverstises a car as the best thing since electricity, it is our job to make sure that we are informed. We have to assume that he will do anything to sell that car to us...Caveat Emptor. Same thing with stocks. They are trying to sell us a bunch of lemons. And we are trying to find the one Orange. It is our job to make sure we know what we are buying. If those stocks were really that valuable, do you think they would be trying to sell them? I agree that deception on the short side should not be tolerated as well. But when you compare the scale of the deception done on the long side, the short side barely registers. Here on SI, there is a little bit more visibility, but we are not a representative sample.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (482)	6/26/2002 9:01:52 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 589

1,387 Enrons? from Investors Business Daily May 2002 Enron's holders weren't the only losers. IBD files show that there are 1,387 companies that lost 90% or more from their five-year highs. Does that mean Congress should start holding hearings, with cameras rolling, to get some answers? Should the Justice Department start whipping up subpoenas for all the manager of those public companies? Should officials start demanding explanations for the 1.49 million bankrupcies in 2001? After all, of the 1,387, there were some stellar stocks where holders took a beating. Marketing Services Group once fetched $360. It's now at $0.99. Online search engine Ask Jeeves once fetched $190.50 a share. Now it trades at $1.64. Investors in these and the other 1,385 lost all or nearly all in this bear market. But don't call for the process servers just yet. These losses are the product of one of the most severe bear markets in our history. The drop in the NASDAQ since March 2000 rivaled the collapse of the Dow in 1929-1930. Whether the losses come from shaky accounting, fraud, or just the bear, they are just as devastating. Rather than at government, then, investors need to look inward and take responsibility for their trades. During the late-1990s bull market, everyone focused on the buy side. The sky was the limit. Brokerages pumped up every firm that even sniffed of tech. Many in the financial media, especially TV, were almost gleeful in their reportage of the gains to be made by buying - even after the bear started. And little thought was given to the essential other side of the transaction: the sell side. Exit strategy was not a phrase heard too often - except by IBD readers perhaps. So the quickest way for individuals to avoid Enron-sized losses? Sell.