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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (37432)	4/19/2010 11:13:51 AM
From: Madharry	Respond to of 78763

enron was an unrecognized fraud by most although chanos picked upon it, I guess most analysts refused to the consider the possibility of fraud, and the banks complicity in this was not pursued criminally by the sec as i think it should have been so history repeats. if weve learned anything at all, it's caveat emptor.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (37432)	4/19/2010 2:56:44 PM
From: MCsweet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78763

Analysts vs stock efficiency, I agree with Madharry that I think there is more opportunity/inefficiency in stocks covered by fewer analysts (or not covered at all). In the later case, you may be one of the few people have done homework on the stock. Every once in awhile, I am in a situation where I think I know about as much about the company as anyone else who is not in the company or a related party. That doesn't mean I always get it right, but my odds are usually better (IMO). That being said, it doesn't make it impossible for the analysts to get it wrong or that there are no opportunities in stocks covered by analysts. In the case of ATPG, it appears to be a high risk/high reward stock, so it could generate a high return despite analyst coverage because it is perceived as a high risk stock. MC