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 : Network Associates (NET) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (4332)	3/18/1999 7:08:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 6021

They would, but do you notice the SEC tends to leave the big houses alone and worry about small fry. No, this is not the case. The violations among the small fry tend to be more glaringly obvious and, therefore, more newsworthy. Usually, the big houses have a toe over the line, earning them a reprimand and a penalty; when the small fry get into trouble, the whole house is over the line. I remember all too well instances in which big houses were stomped by the SEC because of an inadvertent slip by an analyst of investment banking information. They do not normally receive publicity; the analyst simply disappears.

To: TraderGreg who wrote (4332)	3/18/1999 8:21:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 6021

Trader and others: Why in the world do you think that the stock is being manipulated? Let me put it to you this way: there is zero evidence in that direction. This nonsense seems to be recurring market paranoia. The fact is that all sorts of people sold because they are nervous. We still haven't seen what Q4 looks like, and some people who are unable to evaluate 10-Qs and 10-Ks haven't figured out that the SEC findings only affect earnings (which is an artificial number designed by accountants to measure economic profit) not cash flow. There will be no affect on cash flow. There will be no affect on taxes. There will be no affect on revenues. There will be an affect on expenses only insofar as the timing of the recognition of those expenses is concerned, but only for SEC purposes -- not the IRS. Maybe the people who get upset should look at different profitability metrics. So let me ask you folks this question: who did the selling, and who's fault was it that they sold? Did the analyst at Robbie Stevens hold a gun to anybody's head? And why, with a downgrade from strong buy to buy, would you even suggest something underhanded. I guess I'm just not into conspiracy theories in stocks with large floats and lots of market makers. TTFN, CTC