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.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ted David who wrote (1610)	9/2/1998 10:24:00 PM
From: Dr. Jeff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

<<GM's stock price dropped as part of a major drop in the Dow. It was unaffected at the time of the strike.>> Yes, and when the strike settled it started dropping. The settlement was supposed to be good news for the company (and theoretically the stock), but it did nothing but fall, contributing to the fall in the dow. Just because it's in the Dow is not a reason for it's decline. It's a stock that is traded based on it's business and earnings prospects. For the stock to be recommended by several people on your program while the company was effectively out of business (when on strike), as a good "turn-around" play is appalling. (Especially considering it never dropped during the strike to really qualify as a "turn around"). The people that make calls like that should be banned from recommending anything. Just my strong opinion. Thank you for responding and acknowledging your error about buy-back announcements. An on-air correction wouldn't be a bad idea. People should know.

To: Ted David who wrote (1610)	9/3/1998 1:18:00 PM
From: JPM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, That was a good interview with Greg? Callahan from Meridian Investments. Regarding one of his picks, you asked him what fair value was on the stock so the investor knew when to sell. He gave a very obtuse answer, and I commend you for pursuing it. Fair value he said was around 18. I get appalled when these arrogant managers think they can shuck and jive and get away with it. Way to pin him down!! JPM

To: Ted David who wrote (1610)	9/3/1998 6:26:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, this may be bordering on "secrets of the temple" territory, but I'll ask anyway. How is it that the editors at CNBC choose which brokerage firm moves highlight pre-market? By way of a disclaimer - the whole sell-side analyst phenomena has long been a fascination of mine (I've always made the claim that a handful of motivated high-school students could produce a better work product than 80% of the sell-side analysts out there), but even more fascinating has been the media's handling of these characters. Nothing gets on CNBC by accident. There are persons off-camera exercising judgement. IMHO, at times it is so loose as to be irresponsible. For example, last Monday we had the "big" pre-market analyst move being the upgrading of MU from a "Buy" to a "Strong Buy" from Dan Niles at Robbie Stephens. Anyone who has been following MU over the last year knows that this man on this stock has just been a disaster. True to course, after popping to an open last Monday (8/24) over 31 MU hit an intraday low this past Tuesday of 20 9/16 - that would be a decline of roughly 50% in just 7 sessions intraday. But this morning, we get Maria Bartiromo right before the opening bell looking into the camera and mentioning that Robbie Stephens is speaking positively about MU and stating that it is on the low end of its trading range (duh). My question is who is responsible for making the decision to air those types of calls and how do you get them? Do you get calls from the media relations personnel at these firms? Clients of these firms with positions? What is it that forces whoever is responsible for supervising the on-air copy to just totally roll over and play dead when this type of call occurs? This morning, Maria B. blithely ignoried what any home viewer with a moderately good memory knows - the firm upped the stock only 8 sessions ago, it tanked over 50% from the open that morning, and now they're saying good things again. IMHO, if there is someone at your station responsible for reviewing the on-air feed on a daily or weekly basis, after viewing that particular report this morning they should be extremely dissatisfied that the report went on air in a manner that makes it look as if your station has no institutional memory or conscience. Why wouldn't questioning the editorial judgement of CNBC in ignoring the sell-off following the most recent call, in ignoring the underwriting relationships this firm has had with MU, in ignoring the fact that the stock has tanked BADLY since the firm hosted a semiconductor conference at which MU was a presenter (and no doubt some porfolio managers bought) in today's report be valid? This is only the most recent example. This past Monday Maria B. had another "canon fodder special" on Autodesk in which she was gushing about two upgrades, yet forgetting to mention the announcement of a recent planned acquisition AND a pre-warning about Asian revs. only days before. The stock opens north of 27 and by the end of the day ended up posting a loss. Today it closed @ 23 3/8. Wouldn't your station improve the quality of its broadcast by attempting to place more context around these calls? What is it that stops you from doing so? There are a lot of new investors in the markets who do rely on your station as a source of information. That type of no-frills headline reporting, especially in instances which scream out for context, does a great disservice to your viewers. I'd like to see it improve. Best wishes, Tom

To: Ted David who wrote (1610)	9/3/1998 8:40:00 PM
From: jopawa	Respond to of 17683

Ted, With all due respect to Ms. Cohen she is wrong right now. The Dow still masks the true carnage in this market. If you own anything other than an S&P Index fund, you are down at least 30% from the highs. I see Ms. Cohen specifically, and most of your other experts in general touting "the financials" all the way down, 50% from their highs! It is going to take a 100% return on CCI, TRV, JPM, etc. to get back to those levels. It reminds me so much of all the experts touting the "drillers" last year until they were down 80%! Someone on your program needs to call them out on their horrible calls. I trade daily and enjoy your programming in general, but the horrible calls these people make are never called to task. I have no axe to grind specifically since I tend to close all positions at the end of the day, but I feel for the people who have been burned by following "the experts". Incidentally, I'll never forget Scott Blier from Prime Charter (CIO he must be important!) calling PTEK his single favoriate stock on your edge programming. It was in the 30's at the time, and subsequently proceeded to tank to single digits within a month, long before all the rest of the present carnage happened. He is still a regular guest on your programming, and nobody called him on a truly horrific recommendation. No, I didn't buy the stock, but I did follow it for a possible trade. Ted, in general I like your programming and most of your colleagues, I just wish accuracy and accountability were a higher priority. John

To: Ted David who wrote (1610)	9/4/1998 9:18:00 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

well, is this proof? Does CNBC have an anti-gold bias? gold went through an up move of better than 4 dollars yesterday, with very little mention! The XAU precious metals index moved up 6.57 yesterday, with only one light comment! Today Larry Cudloe made the statement that gold is going down, without challenge despite the up moves of the last several days! Is this a grand conspiracy? At least speak the truth? Why not speculate if the move will continue? Ted, please tell me I'm wrong. Please fix these problems! r harmon

To: Ted David who wrote (1610)	9/8/1998 9:20:00 AM
From: Greg Jung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

It would have been nice to have seen some commentary from this man during my brief viewing of CNBC. No longer one of the designated bears. examiner.com The labor day "bargain shopping" show had an interesting moment when the value fund managers were on, and an E-mail had come in, " I just lost $36,000 when I cashed my mutual fund on monday. What stocks can I buy now that will quickly appreciate, ..." Scary, the effect this channel has on people! Greg