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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (69542)	12/7/1998 1:55:00 PM
From: Carl Held	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Average shares traded down 16% since last week.

To: puborectalis who wrote (69542)	12/7/1998 2:14:00 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<<But we should be able to hold these anorectums accountable for their well researched remarks.>> They are accountable. If an analyst is doing a particularly poor job, you can take your commissions elsewhere. If you aren't currently doing business with a particular firm, the analyst has no reason to be accountable to you.

To: puborectalis who wrote (69542)	12/7/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: suing bad analysts An analyst would be liable to a stockholder if he intentionally misrepresented a firm and induced a client to experience a loss. Since he is an agent of his firm, he advances its interests of the broker at the expense of the client routinely by taking commissions, but he has a fiduciary duty of honesty and taking care of the clients' interest at expense of own. As long as the usual disclaimers are made, he is probably scot free. Under the client's agreement with the broker, the dispute would have to be resolved in arbitration. Class action suits are possible, and extreme bonehead behavior -- like Kurlak's -- could possibly be held to violate his fiduciary duty of best efforts and honesty to clients. If it can be shown that with ordinary research (like attending to Intel's guidance which has proved correct in the past) he should have known better, the aggrieved clients might win. Intel's chances of proceeding against Kurlak are limited. Intel is much more likely to be sued successfully for per se libel by Kurlak for ridiculing him in front of his fellow analysts. Its all very amusing, but if ML did sack him (as they ought) he would, I believe, have an arguable case against Intel. Powerful firms have to be careful in depriving persons of their livelihood by ridiculing their professional competence (even their own employees).