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: John Carragher who wrote (141724)	3/1/2006 2:37:29 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Greenberg and cramer are questionable imo. greenberg has made runs at companies before. i remember he was tied to a short firm in boston that held a very large short position in cree years ago. for about four years greenberg kept putting out negative stuff on cree. greenberg finally moved on. This is a little bit unfair to the short side. If a long institution tells you a bunch of true and good things about the company it is certainly not illegal. Same should be true of shorts. Both bias the information but as long as it isn't untrue info it is, and probably should be, legal. JMO. Clark

To: John Carragher who wrote (141724)	3/1/2006 2:51:19 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 152472

John, Jon, Hedge, Clark, Re: Cramer, etc. Me too think they protest too much. IMO, Cramer has been treading of shaky ground for a long time, having the luxury of having the NY AG as a close buddy. Re: “This is a little bit unfair to the short side. If a long institution tells you a bunch of true and good things about the company it is certainly not illegal. Same should be true of shorts. Both bias the information but as long as it isn't untrue info it is, and probably should be, legal.” No problem with that, it works both ways. The problem IMO is when the “journalists” work “hand-in hand” with the hedgefunds / manipulators (long or short) to influence the price of a stock and bucks change hands in aiding such manipulation. I've thought for a long time that the SEC should look into CNBC / Cramer / the "journalist" community and how they "influence the market by following the money trail. It's a difficult task with the freedom of the press, etc. I hope Cox doesn't fall to the "political" pressures and back-off entirely. In Cramer’s case, It's hard for me to believe that some of Cramer's friends don't get wind of what he's hyping before hand, and make / perhaps share a few bucks resulting from such. What did they call it during the 50's, involving the record industry (payola)?