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: Scot Rosenblum who wrote (2544)	4/27/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 17683

Scot/Maria-- Thanks for taking the time to respond as clearly as you did. Speaking for myself, I really appreciate it. But, the problem, as I see it, is the analyst's ability to USE you to manipulate the market. I think Tom Kurlack is personally responsible for me losing more money than even my ex-wife could spend. <G> Seriously, the problem is that if Morgan-S wants to buy up some more IBM, they feed a story to CNBC. Then comes the difficult part-- as news people, do you report it, or suspecting some manipulation, do you stifle it? I reluctantly have to agree that you should report the story, even if you are suspicious of it. But, it is surely a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation, and whoever owns the gored ox is going to be unhappy. You've been through this process many times, and I'm sure you can "smell the fish in Denmark" sometimes. While I'm an advocate of reporters reporting the news, not interpreting it, maybe this could be an exception. When you see these situations arise, can you let your skepticism, if any, be known? Thanks, jim

To: Scot Rosenblum who wrote (2544)	4/27/1999 9:24:00 PM
From: Ian@SI	Respond to of 17683

Maria / Scot, Thank you for your response. Clearly, I have not accused you of fabricating anything at any time. I'm not sure that the same could be said of Morgan Stanley. The key concern was that the report was made sometime after midday on Triple Witching Friday. Providing the Merrill rebuttal 1 day later (I presume you mean the following Monday) after options / futures contracts had already expired is completely ineffective. I believe that Morgan Stanley has used you and CNBC to disseminate false information. If anyone in that chain knew the information was false, then Securities Fraud has been committed. Whether or not the SEC could lay a charge and make it stick, is a completely different matter. Clearly, Institutions such as Morgan Stanley that invest for their own account have a major conflict of interest. Using CNBC to publicize their "intra day" eurekas less than 4 hours before options expire strikes me as less than prudent. I'm not a journalist. You are. You, and CNBC management, will always be the best judge of what is news, and what is a blatant attempt to manipulate the media, and, in turn, the markets. If I believe that you are helping them or some other institution steal candy from babies again, then I will profit again from that broadcast. Thank you for increasing my investment earnings by an extra 50% during the past month or so. And really, I do enjoy and appreciate your reporting. ... except that one time. Best wishes, Ian.

To: Scot Rosenblum who wrote (2544)	4/27/1999 9:37:00 PM
From: Sandy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

I have no doubt it's Ted. One of the CNBC people who can entertain as well as inform. He gives good banter. Is it Maria? Who knows? If it is, MY GOD!! Maria's in the house! I'll never wash this damn screen again! Maybe someday when CNBC develops its "killer site" they will have a BB so there will be no question. One day CNBC or another entity will break out of the old broadcasting paradigm which is controlled by the clock. Then interesting guests will always be able to finish their thoughts and the anchor will never have to say: "We'll have to leave it there." That and "Thanks for taking my call" should be CNBC trademarks.