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 : Presstek -- Stock of the Decade?? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Ricker who wrote (7597)	12/31/1997 4:10:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11098

The "especially when" in your post seems to connect the two events. Like, "Howard did something wrong therefore whatever Hollingsworth and Lustig did is okay or harmless," or some such concept, is apparently your point. I don't agree with it, in fact find it peculiar. But assuming the SEC description of events is true (in the absence of an admission of guilt) I don't like it one bit that Howard didn't take responsibility for statements such as those in the analysts' reports that he caused to be distributed by the company (the SEC case makes a case against the two officers as opposed to the company; my conjecture is that the size of the fine reflects a negotiation along the lines of: "Okay, we'll word it so that you guys personally "caused" the company to do this, offering some protection to the company, but in exchange you pay this mammoth fine. And, later, you personally may be paying some suing shareholders, too.") Now that I think of it, I don't like it that the offprints of analysts' reports I have often received in investor packets from companies do not, it turns out, have to reflect the truth as the companies know it to be. Holding an officer of a company responsible for this fact is, surprisingly enough, "potentially historic." The link Pierre provided contains this paragraph: "The $2.7 million fine that Howard himself will be paying is among the largest that the SEC has ever levied against an individual. But the Presstek case is potentially historic in other, more important, ways. In the first place, the SEC's discussion of Howard's revision of that analyst's report suggests that once companies agree to review analysts' reports, they have the same obligation to ensure they're materially accurate as they do about their own releases. Surprisingly, companies often look over and revise analysts' reports, as well as distribute them to interested investors, and if you go to many companies' websites, for instance, you'll find links to the analysts who cover them. The implicit logic of the SEC's position in the Presstek case is that if a company sends out an analyst's report, it is responsible for what's inside. (Of what use analysts are if the company is telling them what will happen remains somewhat unclear.)" (Bold mine.) As a Presstek investor, I don't like it that stock market history has to be made by the SEC's finding two Presstek officers guilty of doing this heretofore not prohibited and evidently not uncommon thing; but as an investor in other stocks besides Presstek, I certainly applaud the SEC for setting this new standard and precedent. Way to go, SEC. But disgruntled though I am, I'm in Presstek for something this unprecedented sanctioning of Presstek's officers doesn't affect: its future earnings. I have not lost a minute of sleep over this situation because I plan still to be in Presstek when this history-making ruling is a dim memory and earnings are announced for the year 2001.