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: Ted David who wrote (43729)	1/17/1999 2:08:00 PM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Ted, thanks for stopping in. One historical note is two of the biggest equity bubbles of the century could not be resurrected by lower interest rates Japan in the 80's and the U.S. in the 20's. IMO this current equity bubble tops them both. Mike

To: Ted David who wrote (43729)	1/17/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Ted, thanks for participating on our thread. I would like to ask you a few questions about Silicon Investor as a competitor of CNBC. 1. Where do you place Silicon Investor versus CNBC as competitors in terms both of information reporting and investment advice? I would offer my own experience that I can ask you questions, interact with Michael Burke, a veteran mutual fund manager of the highest quality, or Earlie, an excellent newsletter writer, here. I also have recently communicated at length with Bill Meehan of Cantor Fitzgerald. I can address James Cramer if it suits me. I find that I can associate with a group of people of the very highest quality, certainly competitive with your guests and in much greater depth analyze their thinking and ask direct questions and get direct answers. On CNBC often guests are reduced to a sentence or two of buy-sell-hold logic. I would critique generally that the fine grain qualitative measures of risk are usually lacking in your rapid fire environment. Also, any issues of portfolio management and financial planning take place almost always at a novice level on CNBC. In terms of pure news, I can find news more quickly on the internet that pertain to my specific investment interests, and with the SI community, I find that I have a host of fellow posters that are additional eyes that know what news I am interested in hearing and forward that information to me. 2. How often do you report on the development of the extremely high quality of discussion that goes on among investors on forums such as Silicon Investor on your programs? 3. What way do you see CNBC evolving to incorporate more interactive elements that the internet offers? 4. In terms of the debate of your viewership...You make the point that you are an objective journalist. I would agree that you are among the most objective on CNBC. I find that some of your fellow journalists seem to be more cheerleaders. But my real point in this area is to point out that a significant measure of your programming is presenting people that have one form or another of investment advice to present. They are selling their companies, their mutual funds, their investment services. As I stated earlier, the depth of thinking that many offer is thin. I would say regular squawk box guests such as Cramer, form a good counterpoint as be repeatedly having longer sessions, a viewer can learn more about where such a person is coming from. The point I would like to submit is that if more in depth investors are turning to other media both print and interactive, it may be the least sophisticated investors that you lose in a market downturn. My experience is that most of the posters here on SI look to CNBC to see what is being said to the "masses". Much more in depth analysis goes on here. Many of the SI type viewer has CNBC playing in the background while they do their own research. I suggest it might be the novice that gets buy-sell-hold advice from CNBC that might be driven from your viewership by a drop to 6500. Comments? Thanks in advance.

To: Ted David who wrote (43729)	1/17/1999 3:53:00 PM
From: Merritt	Respond to of 132070

TD: I have no problem with your own reporting and commentary (I bet that makes your day to hear that<G>), but to say <<<The market will do what the market does and I will report it. Period.>>> is misleading, at best. The market is both too large and too diverse for any agency, much less one with the time and programming constraints built into the format of CNBC, to report everything. Therefore there are editorial decisions that must be made as to which stories are aired, and therefore what we see has always been subjectively filtered. Your statement may sound squeaky clean, but it doesn't wash. But I do enjoy your commentaries, Merritt

To: Ted David who wrote (43729)	1/17/1999 5:38:00 PM
From: Cynic 2005	Respond to of 132070

Ted, you have nerves of steel to stop by this bear camp. -g- I followed your posts about 3 years ago on Prodigy classic and I appreciate your taking time to post here (and take some abuse from us, too -g-) In the lovely days of Aug-mid Oct 1998 when the reality was setting in, I saw some SI posts whining about CNBC's bearish stance and one even suggested that Congress should pass a gag order to stop you from bringing bears on to the show (I am not kidding.) However, I personally think CNBC has too much bullish bent and you take extra precaution to discredit the bears and or read the disclaimer loud (Herb Greenberg, Fleckenstein, Tice.) In case you haven't noticed, some hosts' (not yours) tone is decisively combative with the bears. After all, it is understandable as we all know who pays for all the ads. However, don't you think that you as financial journalists have a teeny bit responsibility to report objectively and stay ahead of the pack? Well, uttering caution on internut mania is not necessarily a responsible financial journalism. What I am suggesting is how many accounting scams a la Sunbeam, Cendant, etc., were first> uncovered by the journalists at CNBC? Me thinks nada. Zip. Not only that, your once "hot" reporter now a host, Maria Bartiromo (sp) was believed to be in love with a stock called Micron. (Perhaps she still is.) Cockie Roberts turned down a new story on Bob Livingston peddled by a close associate of Hillary Clinton. I don't really think very highly of ABC news team but this is what I think is "responsible" journalism - not willing to be used as a "pawn" by the vested interest parties. Can you honestly say that CNBC appearances are NOT being used to pump and dump certain stocks by certain regulars on your show and the company officers as well? In that respect CNBC gets an F. There are several things in your note I disagree with you about. If you agreed to the notion that this is a bubble, all your arguments will not hold any water. Be careful out there. Next time when the market is down and if Feds don't rescue the speculators again, the same speculators will start criticizing you for being too bearish. -ggg-

To: Ted David who wrote (43729)	1/17/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

mr david, please review the following... it is breaking information and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to the customers you serve. Message 7319403 thanks for your time. skeeter.

To: Ted David who wrote (43729)	1/18/1999 10:57:00 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Ted, My argument remains that CNBC is overwhelmingly bullish and a bit myopic. Some of that has to do with the fact that it is reporting news and projections of the future are only a small part of its bailiwick. Here are a few of my problems with CNBC, some of which I have posted to you before: 1.I really got disgusted when Tom Kurlak was running his fantasies on Micron Technology about 18 months ago. Maria would absolutely gush every time MU ticked up and always mentioned Kurlak positively. O.K., that part can be understood, as Merrill is a major broker and MU was their top commission stock. But when nothing he said about the company's business came true, there was absolutely zero follow-up from CNBC and certainly not from the designated cheerleader. However, when the same analyst was bearish and, temporarily, IMHO, wrong on Intel's price, he got skewered by the hair spray twins, Kerlak and Faber and the Everwrong Bunny, Cramer, who was actually the voice of moderation on the subject. (Please excuse my spelling of the names. Yours is easy. Not all the others are. <G>) 2. Whenever a bear appears on the network, there are lots of caveats about him or her being short and talking their position. The same is not true of bulls. BTW, there are lots of ways to be bearish other than shorting the stock, and CNBC doesn't cover any of them. 3. I have yet to see any time devoted to the accounting tricks being pulled by co's to bull their eps. Yes, if they get an SEC investigation, you report it. But there should be some nod to quality of earnings on a regular basis, as the quality currently is as low as I've ever seen it. 4. Alternative investing. a. A few years back, when Mark Mobius appeared, Bill Griffith made the comment that "if you only watch one investment interview this year, this is the one." True, you folks have to tease for ratings, which I understand. But now, investing in emerging markets is rarely covered as it is not popular. Heck, a lot of folks got into emerging markets, at least partially because of CNBC hyping them while they were hot. There should be some follow up. b. Commodities are given short shrift. c. I have never seen a segment that discusses closed end funds, though that may be my fault for watching at the wrong time or for blinking my eye (which shuts down my hearing, too <G>). I think they should be a regular segment for their discounts, if for no other reason. d. Using options to reduce risk and increase profits has never been covered as far as I can remember. Innovative strategies may have been mentioned in passing, but all I remember is covered call writing, which is not only a very bullish strategy, but a risky one. There are lots of alternatives other than cash or overpriced domestic stocks and we rarely hear of them on CNBC. 5. Ted, just look at the product after big moves. On an up day, everyone at CNBC is all smiles. On a seriously down day, it looks like a funeral procession. Remember, some of your viewers are happy when stocks are only 250% overvalued instead of 300% overvalued. 6. Can't you folks find anyone who will criticize Greenspan's reckless printing of money and record expansion of credit, both of which are far beyond the economy's ability to generate real growth? All the economists and investment managers, even some sane ones, think he is doing a great job when he is really unbalancing the economy is an extremely dangerous manner. In fact, he is doing just what he accused the Fed of doing in the late 1920s. The A.G. love fest is not only one-sided, it is nutso. Obviously, I watch and there are things I like. I don't think many of the folks on CNBC even know they are biased to the bullish side, but they definitely are. I would like to see more balance and less cheerleading, bullish or bearish. Ted, you have a lot of courage to post here. I'll bet you get more notes than Santa in mid-December. <G> MB