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 : The Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lucretius who wrote (44028)	5/30/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86076

What do you mean creamed by one of his own? I think that was the fabulous market babe that wrote that, not Herb Greenberg like it sort of seems like at the beginning. The fact that Cramer was willing to hire Greenberg tells me all I need to know - Greenberg was pretty worthless out here for the longest time. But fwiw I don't think Ms fabmarketbabe is much of a visionary either.... and come to think of it shes probably a GUY! People that refer to themselves as "babe" on the internet usually are guys I have discovered.

To: Lucretius who wrote (44028)	5/30/1999 4:02:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86076

LT, Far be it for me to defend Cramer, but the author is a bit off base in the remarks. First, fund managements with integrity rarely speak to the press to tout their positions. Huh???? Since when? Does anyone think John Templeton, John Neff, Bill Fleckenstein, Mark Mobius and even Michael Burke have no integrity? O.K., don't count that last example. <g> Nearly every fund manager and portfolio manager of managed accounts I know is willing to talk to the press to tout their positions. If Mark Mobius is on CNBS saying to buy Hong Kong Telecom, I assume he owns it in size. If not, why would he mention it? Touting a stock while selling it is the big sin, not the other way around. People say they got Vinicked, not that they got Mobiused. Second, who will comment on stocks if not those who like or dislike them enough to bet on them? Do we really want the opinions of reporters who own nothing? Just like a celebrity shows up on talk shows to plug his new movie, a portfolio manager or analyst or strategist shows up to plug his or her ideas. Also, do we want to hear five minutes of legalese disclaimers before every 3 minute comment? I think you have to assume that anyone who plugs a stock is probably long it and those who pan it are probably short it or long puts. It is not like there is any other reason in the world for these folks to make an appearance. The media doesn't pay. Third, if you believe in a company and are assured of the fundamentals, why would you sell it if it went down? True, if the co. stumbles on fundamentals, your valuation model inputs have changed and it may no longer be a good value. But if the fundamentals are going your way, you should, as the writer said, buy more. But that may be impossible for lackamoolah or other reasons. Then you definitely shouldn't sell to follow some goofus rule. Fourth, I think Cramer has the charisma of an earth worm. <g> Fifth. Just because someone has a vested interest does not mean he is wrong. Yes, you should still do your research and due diligence. But you shouldn't kiss off every idea you hear just because the person happens to own a position. The person owns the position because he believes in it. Sixth. The fund cos. (and fund cos. are far from being the only sophisticated big money traders) that don't talk to the media do so for a reason: they use a no-star team approach to mgt. That is a lousy way to manage money, but at least shareholders do not become attached to the manager and depart if he gets a better offer. They are trying to keep individuals out of the limelight so you will think they are all plain vanilla. This isn't a higher degree of intergrity. It is being cheap. <g>