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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: H James Morris who wrote (146057)	8/23/2002 4:22:30 PM
From: Bob Kim	Respond to of 164685

HJ, I think a lot of people are jumping the gun and a lot don't quite understand the regulatory requirements, including some law professors. From Bloomberg: "It would only violate a law if Grubman's recommendation was not his own good-faith recommendation," said John Coffee, a Columbia University law professor. "You've got to show that Grubman's opinion was not his true opinion. You can't call a statement by Grubman reckless if it's voiced by a lot of other analysts." As I've mentioned previously, the firm has the authority to issue the research not the analyst. Analysts do get overruled on occasion. In addition, research "shall be approved by signature or initial, prior to use or filing with the Association, by a registered principal of the member. This requirement may be met, only with respect to corporate debt and equity securities that are the subject of research reports as that term is defined in Rule 472 of the New York Stock Exchange, by the signature or initial of a supervisory analyst approved pursuant to Rule 344 of the New York Stock Exchange." (from NASD Rule 2210) IMO, there should be some attention paid to the "registered principals" and "supervisory analysts" whose signatures and initials show up in the research approval paper trail.

To: H James Morris who wrote (146057)	8/23/2002 4:36:37 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164685

De Beers still trying to maintain a monopoly. Some of these smaller governments may be bought relatively cheaply. "--- Namibia Postpones Decision to Expand Market Beyond De Beers The Namibian Cabinet has postponed a decision to sell diamonds on the open market without the involvement of De Beers. The postponement follows a loan of $45.7 million offered to the Namibian government by De Beers sightholder Maurice Tempelsman, according to AllAfrica.com. Tempelsman proposed the loan in a letter to Namibian President Sam Nujomo upon hearing of government plans to allow locals direct participation in the sale of diamonds. The loan was offered to help cover the Government's projected national budget deficit. Four months ago, the Cabinet had authorized the Ministry of Mines and Energy to use a dormant section of the government's diamond law to open up the country's diamond market. The sales were supposed to begin in May or June, but never occurred."