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 : From the Trading Desk -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dow Jones Reporter who wrote (2066)	12/16/1997 2:00:00 PM
From: taxikid	Respond to of 4969

DJR or JL, i have looked thru your posts and find one thingh.. try interacting with us netizens as people.. learn our lingo and get inside our heads- we will be far more receptive.. taxi- uh and email me.. if you can get me in a conversation with alan abelson.. i will work 10x harder for you... i have been reading his columns for i can't remember how long.. he's great.. taxi

To: Dow Jones Reporter who wrote (2066)	4/22/1998 9:54:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4969

Johanna, here's an idea. Since it's somewhat "after the fact", I don't know how receptive your editor would be, but I think it's interesting from a number of POV's, most notably the entire analyst phenomena and the question of journalistic standards when reporting rumors. On 4/15/98, approximately 3:30 p.m. EST, CNBC reported A RUMOR that Merrill Lynch analyst Tom Kurlak said that INTC could go to 60. The stock lost 2 1/8 in a matter of 25 minutes into the close. This rumor, as reported by CNBC, was picked up by numerous other high-profile financial news outlets, some stating flat-out that their source for the story was the CNBC report. Others reported it as fact, without stating that their source was CNBC report. Someone on the INTC thread the following day said that his ML broker told him that Kurlak emphatically denied making the call the following day, 4/16/98. Here's the link to that post: Message 4082125 Some possible angles: 1) The accuracy of the CNBC report - did they get snookered into running a bogus rumor that took almost $4 billion in market cap off of the second largest cap on the Naz? 2) The timing of the call - if such a call was made, was this a call that was made in the morning and them somehow took 5-6 hours to find its way onto CNBC (which would open up another angle - the process by which such calls come to the attention of CNBC)? Or was there possibly a second call later in the day mentioning a downside? If there was such a second call, what was it specifically that this analyst saw, heard, or felt in the intervening period of time that would cause him to make a second call, only this time intimating a downside price? 3) Kurlak's alleged denial the following day - Merrill has 14,000 registered brokers. I would assume that some of them were in on these calls and could confirm or deny this alleged denial as well as the call, as reported by CNBC. 4) Any unusual stock or index options trading right before the CNBC report was aired? The report aired three sessions prior to expiration of April options. The perception of intense competition between Morgan Stanley's Mark Edelstone and Merrill's Kurlak for the dominant voice on INTC may also provide some context. IMHO, the whole thing has a strange odor about it. Tom