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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Bid.com International (BIDS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (27037)	4/27/1999 2:44:00 PM
From: MYRED	Respond to of 37507

HEY ALLY MCBEAL DIDN'T YOU SAY THIS STOCK WAS GOING TO $5 CDN LAST WEEK - I REMEMBER YOU, SLAMMMER/HACK - GO AWAY AND CRY IN YOUR BEER WITH DAGAN YOU HACK - AND WE'LL JUST KEEP SPENDING YOUR MONEY - THANKS!!

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (27037)	4/27/1999 2:49:00 PM
From: zwing_88	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37507

>> too often analysts are just whores for the underwriters>> And what do you call Pavan when his company had the business? How can the man who said the stock was worth about 10% of what it is trading at now be well respected? Cover now, bozo. Z

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (27037)	4/27/1999 2:52:00 PM
From: kennbill	Respond to of 37507

Yes, I agree with you, he needs to get FULL Credit... 10-20 years is about right!

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (27037)	4/27/1999 2:52:00 PM
From: WhatsUpWithThat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37507

I also agree with the concept that analysts shouldn't be wed to stocks because their company happened to underwrite it. In principle, and I will (perhaps naively, many of you will say) maintain often in practice because they are under such intense scrutiny, I believe that the companies do a reasonable job of seperating these different business areas. Doubtless there is pressure, and doubtless there is less than total independence <GGG> but nevertheless I can't see Yorkton as the penultimate evil here. Do I agree with Pavan, do I think his statements were careless, do I think he supported his target price with a spurious analysis of the numbers considering the numbers (like gm) haven't changed (except to improve) fundamentally since his first comments? He's a goof, there's no doubt. Do I think he did it so Yorkton could jump on big profits made on this stock? I can't believe a firm gets to be so big by being so stupid. Perhaps the rule should be that analysts shouldn't be able to publish targets on a stock their company did underwriting with for a year, or some more reasonable period, to help lessen the appearance if not the fact of bias. IMHO

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (27037)	4/27/1999 2:56:00 PM
From: Crazy Canuck	Respond to of 37507

>>The National Post reports in its Tuesday, April 27, edition that Yorkton Securities chief executive officer Scott Paterson says his firm should be credited with having the guts to suggest a company it had underwritten had an overvalued share price. I agree completely. Mark Pavan appears to head and shoulders above any other analyst in the industry. Too often analysts are nothing but whores for the underwriting side of the business.<< I say again, that I am confident that whatever spin anyone tries to put on this disgusting episode, the truth will come out one day. When it does, then people can decide for themselves who to blame. I will try not to comment any more on this until someone has the opportunity to examine it properly. Crazy Canuk