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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (267106)	11/13/2003 11:04:36 AM
From: orkrious	Respond to of 436258

One of the better pieces cramer has written <ng> There's No Reason to Stay With Janus By James J. Cramer 11/13/2003 10:50 AM EST thestreet.com Is there anything about Janus (JNS:NYSE) that is good? This morning, buried on page C-13 of today's Wall Street Journal, is an article about how Janus now finds that the net asset value stealing that went on was more extensive than it first suggested. "Significant" trading had taken place after all. The article points out that because some of the important people who were involved no longer work at Janus, the firm can't really figure out what happened. So let's recap: First, Janus denied it let hedge funds steal net asset values in any significant way. When confronted with hard evidence from the prosecution, including emails allowing the stealing, Janus said that it immediately would take care of things. Then it declined to fire the officer who compromised the funds in favor of the hedgies, the now famous email in which he basically said, for $10 million to $20 million, hey, why not? Then, Janus had the temerity to issue a statement that regulators were pleased with the organization's method of handling things, including the New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer then confirmed to me that Janus hadn't even been examined yet and the idea that his office was pleased with Janus was preposterous. (In the interest of full disclosure, Spitzer was an investor at Cramer Berkowitz, the hedge fund I founded.) Now it turns out that the denials of how extensive the skim was were based on nothing but public relations. Which brings me to the point: Who in his right mind is still with Janus? Why aren't the class action lawyers suing every single human resources executive and every single broker who pushes Janus' funds and takes the firm's money? What is with this normally rapacious group of lawyers? Can't these lawyers see money in the bank when it is in front of them? Plaintiffs' lawyers, in case you can't see it, here's what a judge will say to the defendants when you bring a case: "Let me get this straight. You kept your clients' money with these guys even though they had among the worst performance of any fund in the U.S., and then you kept it there still when you found out they were letting hedge funds get over on the little guy -- and then you still kept it there when it turns out their denials were based on nothing? Well, let me ask you, how much and what are you getting to keep your clients with them instead of putting them in an index fund that has handily outperformed them for a fraction of the fees?" Man, this stuff is open and shut. I want to take these cases! Oh well, maybe Janus will rebate so much in 12-b-1 and pay so well that it is worth it to take the money regardless of the legal risk. That's not a bet I would make, though, if I claimed to be a fiduciary. Random musings: Pilgrim Baxter, say it ain't so! I never liked those guys, and now The Wall Street Journal reports that they've resigned from the firm they founded after an internal investigation into market timing. Man, this is awful. I can't believe that these guys make Buzz and Batch look like Bambi and Thumper.