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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (47463)	2/28/2006 11:54:54 AM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Great Cramer piece Subpoenas Don't Change the Mission By Jim Cramer RealMoney.com Columnist 2/28/2006 10:43 AM EST Click here for more stories by Jim Cramer thestreet.com You can say anything positive you want about a stock, any stock, even if the stock is just awful and the company corrupt. Anything. Brokers can be positive, journalists can be positive, and they won't get investigated by the federal government for their bullishness. The Most Read Stories From TheStreet.com 1. The Big Drugs for 2006 2. Cisco, Juniper Find New Foe 3. XM's New Ex Dims Satellite Radio's Star 4. The Five Dumbest Things on Wall Street This Week 5. Crude Falls on Iran Deal Sign Up Free But when you say something negative, even if the stock would be going down of its own volition, even when your only goal is to try to keep people from losing money, you could be subject to an inquiry from the U.S. government. Don't think there is anything else behind the subpoena I received about Gradient Analytics, an outfit I have never dealt with, and until the subpoena, didn't even know. If there were anything else, I believe I would have known about the subject before the government decided to try to haul me in and ask me questions. Don't get me wrong, I am all about helping and supporting the government. Anyone who has followed my stuff knows that I am pro-prosecution, perhaps viciously so. I know they didn't pick the names to investigate out of the phone book. I also know that you don't get a subpoena because the government thinks you are innocent of something; you get one because the government thinks you are guilty of something. That's what makes me so angry about this subpoena. Why didn't the government just pick up the phone and call me and ask me whether I knew Gradient? Why did it have to take the unprecedented and, frankly, damning tack of sending me a subpoena, with all the stigma that is attached to that process? I come back to the notion of what happens when you get a subpoena. First, you are embarrassed and angry because of the implications. Second, when you have no idea about the sub stance of the subpoena, you begin to wonder, how did the government get my name? Third, in this particular case, since an SEC subpoena is supposed to be part of a confidential investigation, I found it odd that Patrick Byrne, the CEO of Overstock (OSTK:Nasdaq - commentary - research - Cramer's Take), knew that there was one more subpoena out there besides The Wall Street Journal targets -- and they are targets. How did he know that? I don't even know if the federal government knew the effect of giving me this subpoena. The effect is to make it so that I will think twice when I want to suggest to people that a stock is dangerous. If you can just call the SEC and order an investigation into me, you win; I lose. I have neither the firepower nor the time, let alone the energy, to take on the government on these subpoenas. Better just to adopt my late grandmother's admonition: If you don't have something positive to say, don't say it. Now, there's a philosophy that will cause people to lose fortunes, but will keep me from getting the next subpoena. This subpoena business is an irritation and a hassle, but I will keep doing what I'm doing: educating people and calling it like I see it.