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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (128917)	5/10/2003 10:21:03 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Art, here are some more items you may wish to discuss if you get the chance. I sent these to the SEC about a year ago. (I’m not so sure you want to discuss the Jim Cramer stuff- gg) 1. Analysts should not be prohibited from holding positions in the stocks they cover. If a stock is rated a buy for the retail investor, the analyst and the firms should also own the stock. However, they should not be be permitted to buy (or increase their position) before a buy recommendation/upgrade, or sell (or reduce their position) before a sell recommendation/ downgrade. They should also be prohibited from trading against their recommendations. These trading rules should also apply to the whole firm, not just the analyst covering the particular stock. If the firm operates a mutual fund or advises other institutional investors, the action it takes with its mutual fund or the advice it gives to other institutional clients should be consistent with that published for the retail/individual investor. 2. Analysts should be prohibited from informing anyone outside of the firm of their recommends/downgrades prior to such being published. 3. If an analyst makes a misstatement of fact within his/her published report, or during an interview with the media, and is challenged by a concerned party (the company in question or one of its competitors), that challenge should be responded to under a press release from the brokerage firm. 4. The analyst should disclose their positions in companies which are competitors in the industry or related industries of the company they are covering or have an investment banking relationship with. 5. The SEC should also be investigating the media and their role in market manipulation. CNBC’s role in providing a vehicle for hedge fund operators to pump and dump should be investigated. (refer to- "Trading With The Enemy" re. James Cramer, a frequent quest and now a host on CNBC). I don’t believe that CNBC which is owned by GE has ever disclosed that part of their business is GE Capital totaling several billion dollars of equity positions (long & short?) in many companies. CNBC now requires the “analysts” to disclose their positions in stocks they discuss, yet CNBC which decides which “news” to report and selects which “analysts” to comment on the various companies never discloses GE Capital’s position (long / short) in those same companies. 6. Additionally, the SEC should be investigating the print media and internet news services for their role in market manipulation. In volatile markets its is very easy for a hedge fund to plant an erroneous story on the Internet which then gets picked up by CNBC resulting in significant price action in many cases. 7. Further, the SEC should investigate the print media for potential biased journalism resulting from advertising business. As an example, I was a subscriber of the Investors Business Daily for several years during which I observed that their articles relative to wireless telecom were very unbalanced in favor of GSM/TDMA (AT&T) technology over CDMA (QUALCOMM, PCS). It finally became apparent to me that AT&T was one of their biggest advertisers. Could it be a coincidence, or does the advertising dollar unfairly influence journalistic content. jim