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 : Source Media SRCM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moneysmith who wrote (1044)	8/25/1998 6:33:00 PM
From: tdl4138	Respond to of 3015

Not to take sides here... About a week or two ago...UNH was trading @55-57...On Monday,Prudential or another "big" house put a strong buy rating on UNH. Wednesday they announced earnings...Thurs it fell $18... Again, not to take sides...but I'm learning quickly that most (not all) of the "analysts" rec's...aren't worth a plug nickel. Not to say this is the case here...but I wouldn't bet the farm on anything just because it came from Prudential...or Merrill Lynch...or DLJ....How many times have these "big" investment houses rec. jumping into the oil/service stocks in the last 3-4 months? Just my thoughts Dave

To: Moneysmith who wrote (1044)	8/25/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Pluvia	Respond to of 3015

<<<This would be both illegal and wrong and stupid. Now Pluvia et al....an unregulated group of no fixed address and no accountability is seen as a more credible source of opinion than a major financial institution.>>> We at the House of Pluvia attribute a value to the research produced by these so called "major financial institutions", equal to the amount of money that can be recover from the paper on which these ridiculous reports are written. We also feel the most appropriate use of the recovered paper would be to produce recycled toilet paper, thus providing a product that can be used in a manner we feel is most comparable with the best possible use of the original research. Cheers Steve

To: Moneysmith who wrote (1044)	8/25/1998 9:13:00 PM
From: Rajiv	Respond to of 3015

The Analysts are known to sell their souls for amounts far less than the fees and commissions that Prudential earned from the 100 million bonds issue. I can give you hundreds of examples where institutional analysts have exhibited horrible timing. The Prudential analyst is probably waiting for SRCM to hit $5 before downgrading. An average analyst is not very reliable. I am assuming that you missed out the Conference Call - some dude (I do not remember from which firm) raised the issue of GeoCities & the smug response of the CEO was that Source Media has generated more revenue than GeoCities for several quarters. While it is true that Pluvia, Pink et al are anonymous to most people, they have a better understanding of SRCM. They are not the only source of investment advice to most people in this thread. Most people do follow-up research. An average short does more research than an average long (it is not easy being a successful bear in a bull market). I am amazed how longs are taking the issue of "loss of customers/revenue" so lightly. They have lost a major source of revenue [ note that their pro forma revenues are declining ]. An average Nasdaq stock would have got slaughtered the day it came out with its earnings (the information about loss of business was not known to the public) - did you see what happened to CIEN? Any one can see that SRCM does not have a viable business model - the interest payments on the bonds will lead them to bankruptcy. Regards. Rajiv