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: J. P. who wrote (44093)	6/1/1999 5:20:00 AM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86076

my own response to the situation you describe is that the markets are hardball. I have to decide: 1. if the game is too rough for me altogether...and should i find another game 2. if options with their clock ticking against me, are the right thing given the hardball being played. 3. if in particular 1 or 2 month out options are appropriate. 4. if i should find another game. 5. what kind of legislation i should advocate. === i think when it comes to "motives" in stock recommendations, we are talking serious micromanagement and things that are easy to intuit but very hard to prove and regulate. another issue is "who follows the recommendations?" are we implicitly saying here that we need legislation or heavier regulation because the average investor is stupid? when i decide to invest, it is against the known landscape. brokerages will make recommendations. recommendations are almost always bullish. joey b and abby c et al are going to make their statements. the options clock is ticking against me. i don't object to the thinking that it is a tough game. particularly that buying short term puts is hazardous. a priori what i object to is taking positions, and then after the fact when the position goes the wrong way, pointing to how the game is crooked. like, it must be, the proof is that my investment didn't pan out. that is simply whining. i am not saying that's what you are doing here. but that is the kind of thinking that i have seen and has made me gun shy from debating on this issue of semi-religious pitch. i don't buy either the argument that these brokerages simply touted mu knowing it was crap because they owned it. why on earth would they buy crap and then try to tout it. why not buy something that they actually thought was decent and try to tout that stock instead. often i think the argumentation in this area is weak in that regard. i'm more willing to accept that dan niles doesn't know how to tell the difference between units and dollars, or that he got seduced by a cushy relationship with management, or that he underestimated supply coming on line, or that many of these firms were vying for a banking offering from mu than i am to buy the argument that they knowingly bought a crap stock solely to tout it.