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: capitalistbeatnik who wrote (2583)	5/2/1999 3:46:00 AM
From: Gary M. Reed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

Ok, let's talk real errors. Back last Fall, my largest position was Sequus Pharmaceuticals. They agreed to a takeover bid from Alza. It was a stock deal, so where the stock would open the next day was somewhat ominous, but even with a healthy discount to closing date, the stock was a double from where it had closed the day before. Five minutes before the open, the stock was indicated at 14 1/2 x 15 1/4. One minute before the open, David Faber gets on TV and screams that the deal was a TAKE UNDER! He poo-poos the deal and makes some snide comments about SEQU holders, when in fact, it was a huge take-OVER. In that one minute between his report and the open, the stock indication went down 1 1/2 points...all because Faber was on TV screaming takeunder, which obviously spooked the market makers in the stock, who must've thought they'd gotten the story wrong. Now, the damage was done...it took over a week for the stock to finally touch its actual equilibrium price of $20. But people who had orders to sell on the open (a smart move on many takeover deals) got royally screwed. Now, obviously this was not a premeditated move on David's part; rather, it just illustrated his lack of simple math skills, as well as a non-present editor; however, what really gaffed me was that there was no correction issued afterwards, nor was there even a mere mention of Sequus by anyone at CNBC the rest of the day, even though the stock had doubled from the previous day's close in a market (remember last fall) when every small cap was getting smashed. My point is this: Faber, Maria, Insana, et al are all too quick to blow their own horn when they scoop a story correctly. They'd give themselves a lot more credibility if they'd admit to/quickly correct their on-air mistakes as well. When they only toot their horn about their victories, they sound like guys at the horse track...always telling you about their home run, but never mentioning the goofups that led to the home run. I was so pissed that I considered sending a calculator, along with instructions on how to properly calculate takeover premiums to Faber, but he is so cocky that I doubt if it would even register with him. For my money, Kernan is the king reporter on CNBC...he is the only one there who does not take himself too seriously. In the zest to "scoop" CNNfn, you guys should take in consideration what effect CNBC has on airing stories. When David Faber goofs on calculating the net value of a takeover offer and it translates into a stock's bid dropping 10% in one minute on his erroneous story, one would think that CNBC would take the appropriate steps to ensure that stuff like that was cross-checked before it hit the air. Finally, totally off-topic: can someone PLEASE instruct Maria that: a.) there are other synonyms for "pounding the table." When she gives her morning report, it is annoying to hear every two seconds that some analyst is "pounding the table" on a stock. b.) there are several hundred other stocks at the NYSE other than AOL. She gets all goosed up every morning on AOL, regardless of it's premarket indication. "Folks, I'm showing AOL indicated 139 to 140, UPPPPP from a close of 137 yesterday." Memo to Maria: a stock moving from 137 to 140 is equivalent to a stock moving from 13 3/4 to 14. If you juiced on every NYSE stock that went from 13 3/4 to 14 overnight, I'd understand...but you obviously think that is "quite a move" only when AOL makes it. It isn't. Besides, we don't need a quote machine...we tune in for news, quotes are freely available to anyone who is looking, so why do you bore us with AOL indication updates? Same goes for your market calls. S&P futures can be up .50 over fair value and you'll be on there going, "Folks, we're looking for a strong opening." If the futures are down .50, it's "Folks, we're looking for a weak opening." Hey, we see the futures insert on the screen already...your job is to tell us something we don't already know.