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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (31053)	8/13/1998 11:35:00 AM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, the stock floggers can become consultants for securities lawyers and CNBS can air commercials for securities lawyers. Someday gold will shine- i know you like platinum better. I don't know if you have heard of ANOTHER - he/she posts on some gold site -very interesting comments #reply-5467834 Mike ho ho ho

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (31053)	8/13/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

You're right. Perspective is important. People who continue to stay almost fully invested certainly aren't necessarily dumb. I shouldn't have used that term, but I do wish I could influence some of those who are close to me to be a little more cautious to preserve the gains that this bull market has given them. I know -- it is their money. Re Jesus' words: God forbid that any of us reach the point where we think that what sits in our brokerage or bank accounts is "real treasure." Useful to us and others while we are here, that's all.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (31053)	8/13/1998 5:14:00 PM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

MB, TipTop: I suggested to one of MB's favourite reporters that an article that examined the similarities and differences between today's market environment and that which precluded the crash of '29, might be an interesting read. I think it may now be in the works. When asked what I thought might represent major differences, I cited CNBC first, accounting second, analysts third, and "the net" fourth. In order: - an historic percentage of the public is involved with the market. A corollary of this is that an historic percentage of involved investors are both inexperienced and easily influenced. Never before in history has a situation existed wherein investors have been inundated, day in and day out, with positively slanted 'investment advice". Goebels would be proud of the brain-washed results. - Given the level of inexperience, few investors are suspicious of "audited results", hence fewer still would think to question the integrity of same. With every management team in the country under enormous pressure to produce "better-than-forecast" results, and with their incentive linked to stock options, small wonder that reported results are riddled with chicanery. Analysts used to cover fewer stocks and spent most of their time doing research. Today, each typically follows dozens of stocks and is forced to spend at least 50% of his/her time selling/presenting his ideas to clients. No wonder analysts rely on their "computer modelling" (GIGO still holds) and upon management relationships. As a result, the public is fed the "company line", thinly revised by a positively biased computer program. Few analysts feel (or are) secure enough to issue anything other than "buy" or "hold recommendations. The net is a potent new market influence, currently in considerable flux. In its early days, it tended towards cheerleading, but has quickly become a remarkable source of both factual data and intense debate, something that has never before been available to the average investor. Unfortunately, many investors haven't or cannot gain access, and a certain amount of tenacity is required by those that do, to filter the torrential informational flow. Factors such as these extend the lifespan of this remarkable bubble. Best, Earlie