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 : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (11647)	12/12/2002 9:35:08 PM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

If you think Blodget was right, there's not much to say. (Unless you're referring to what he was saying privately in e-mails) And it's not quite accurate to say that people wanted "right" answers, they wanted the analyst to say that the price was going up. Those who were, accurately, saying we were in a bubble got pilloried. To each their own, but don't expect too much sympathy on this thread if you're going to complain about unbalanced NEGATIVE reporting on CNBC.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (11647)	12/12/2002 10:32:11 PM
From: agent99	Respond to of 17683

Guess why- Because Blodget was RIGHT- for a while. People wanted the right answers then. Blodgett was RIGHT? He was so right that he had to create his own imaginary metrics to publicly justify the bubble price targets that he also created. And his overoptimistic projections were a total fiction that could never ever be met. He was at the right place at the right time, a very lucky pied piper who attracted scores of adoring sheeple at a time when they thought that everything net related was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And he fed them what they wanted. So ya, in that respect he was 'right'. We now know that on a fundamental basis he was so totally wrong, that his to-infinity-and-beyond projections were moronic. It had nothing to do with smarts or with his being a good analyst (he was actually a pretty sucky analyst as it turned out), it was pure dumb luck. The market can make even great analysts look like idiots at times because they make the right calls but the market refuses to listen. Even Warren Buffet was criticized for missing out on the net boom. Who looks smarter today? Did Warren Buffet not have the "right answers then"? And look at Dan Niles. He was negative on the semis for ages. Then his peers at Merrill and Solly upgraded them, the stocks flew, and they made names for themselves overnight. Were they right because the stocks moved on their reports? We all know the answer to that now. They moved because those analysts said what the sheeple wanted to hear. I guess those were "the right answers" according to your logic because the stocks moved. Niles was publicly flogged by many for his negativity. Niles, however, was pretty doggedly consistent. And everyone said he was wrong. Until, of course, he was proved right and all of the analysts that made their silly 'the semis have bottomed' calls had egg on their faces and collectively lowered their estimates. Several times. Following Niles. Who's the ax now? Mr. Niles. As I said, timing is everything. (And I guess there's alot to be said for being lucky rather than smart)