To: yard_man who wrote (30248 ) 7/25/1998 10:51:00 AM From: Knighty Tin Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 132070
Tip, The IBM story, especially, was uninhibited praise for what was really an awful quarter. I love the mention of a "turnaround" in the pc business. When did this happen? <G> Anyway, most analysts on Wall Street follow a small segment of the tech area. The guy who follows pcs only follows pcs, not chips or communications or anything. If they do not have buys on their lists, and lots of reasons for their buys, they lose shelf space on the morning reports and on conference calls. No stock jamming broker wants to hear "we're still cautious on the area and wouldn't own any of these stocks." They want to hear, "despite all the difficulties, IBM faked a quarter that didn't look too bad." <G> This means that even without a banking interest, analysts are co-opted into saying something bullish about their niche in an industry. If they don't, they get shuffled aside by the analysts who do have something bullish for the brokers to hump to the public. And if you become a non-event at your firm, you are likely to at least become underemployed, if not unemployed. Yes, some individual brokers do recommend puts and short sales, but they are such a small part of the whole that they are insignificant. The customer calls and wants to know, "what should I buy." The broker needs a list of names and at least moderately credible stories to flog to the public. They cannot make a living on negative recommendations. So, if an analyst is halfway honest and he sees a downturn coming, he starts talking about 2001 or 2002. And the former used car salesmen lap it up. To be fair, there are honest analysts and honest brokers who want to know what is really happening and relay it to their clients. But just as there were members of the 7th Cavalry at The Little Bighorn, they are greatly outnumbered and never likely to carry the day. MB