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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Christopher Reed who wrote (11053)	12/18/1997 12:21:00 AM
From: sepku	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77398

>>>Later when I called him for confirmation (my choice) I got csco at 54 11/16. But the close was 54 3/16. It went from 54 11/16 to 54 3/16 in 7 Min. That's unbelievable. What happened? <<< I truly believe it has to do with Goldman Sachs. These firms consistently upgrade/downgrade at the worst times, imaginable. Witness ML's upgrade at 90, followed by the collapse to the low 70s. They did the same thing to ASND, upgrading in the 50s, followed by collapse to the low 30s and then issuing a downgrade. Like I mentioned on the ASND thread, I would not be surprised the ML upgrade was a warning shot to JJC, helping in his decision to dump at the top...after all, Merril is notorious for that. The only upgrades and downgrades that I find less suspect, are the ones which clearly issue a target price. That puts more of their reputation on the line. Have you noticed that firms rarely do this compared to standard UG/DG's? Everyone has their own take on the matter, but I can't see such consistently poor timing as mere coincidence. Goldman's upgrade helped my decision in shorting CSCO. I wouldn't be surprised they reduced exposure to CSCO on the momentum of their upgrade. Style Pts.