Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M"
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 00:16:31 -0400
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] "M" "Patrick Wahl"
Previous Article (by Subject): [CANSLIM] "M" "Tom Worley"
Top of Thread: [CANSLIM] "M" "Tom Worley"
Next in Thread: [CANSLIM] "M" "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_02C4_01C226DD.E0B26210
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When I was an active broker, I routinely spoke to the CEO or CFO of =
corporations, didn't matter if they were big or small corps. Wasn't =
always easy to get thru, but once I did, I got answers to my questions, =
and rarely had a problem after that getting them to take my call. How =
did I do it? Simple, I did my homework first, and asked intelligent =
questions from the start. I think too many analysts on Wall St today get =
thru because of who they are, then get fed the fodder that the CEO or =
CFO wishes them to swallow.
It's not just SSB's mutual funds, it's the house funds of virtually =
every major wire house. I have seen several studies on mutual fund =
performance, and house funds consistently were in the bottom quartile of =
performance. I never figured out why anyone would buy them. And I come =
from the old school, where the load on a house fund was not only huge by =
comparison, but the broker got a higher payout on his house funds =
commissions, so there was a major conflict of interest.
And the irony is that I have seen and heard situations at the major wire =
houses where the house analyst would tout a stock to the retail brokers =
to create buying demand so the house funds could unload their holdings =
to them. Guess who was better off by this exercise? Certainly wasn't the =
clients. And still the house funds would underperform.
- ----- Original Message -----=20
From: Fred Richards=20
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] "M"
If he means to imply that as an analyst, he did not peruse deeply the =
10-k and 10-q reports as well as the red herrings, he should be drawn & =
quartered.
There is simply no excuse for not knowing by a person who is reported to =
have gotten $20 million in salary and bonuses for his analytical =
expertise.
But then, you look at the results of any of the Smith Barney mutual =
funds and the lack of performance can be found throughout their entire =
portfolio.
Why anyone continues to buy and hold the SSB mutual funds is quite =
frankly beyond me.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com =
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Mendheart@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 3:23 PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M"
In a message dated 7/8/02 12:37:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time, =
wlittle1@peoplepc.com writes:
Mendheart:
What in particular did you observe or conclude?
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mendheart@aol.com>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M"
> Canslimers, et.al.,
>
> Now, if you really want to see what "M" is all about, just view =
Jack
> Grubman's(Salomon Smith Barney) testimony at the World Com fraud =
hearing.
No
> wonder we're in such difficulty!!
>
> Denny (mendheart@aol.com)
Well just let me say that for a guy who was touting WorldCom for so =
long who was purportedly "the #1 analyst for WorldCom" to say that he =
really didn't know what was going on....HELLO??? I mean here's a =
systemic problem and he simply states he was lied to....give me a break! =
Grubman is just like all the others except maybe worse given the amount =
of $$ that he and Salomon Smith Barney were compensated by this "lying" =
firm.
D=20
- ------=_NextPart_000_02C4_01C226DD.E0B26210
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>When I was an active broker, I routinely spoke =
to the CEO=20
or CFO of corporations, didn't matter if they were big or small corps. =
Wasn't=20
always easy to get thru, but once I did, I got answers to my questions, =
and=20
rarely had a problem after that getting them to take my call. How did I =
do it?=20
Simple, I did my homework first, and asked intelligent questions from =
the start.=20
I think too many analysts on Wall St today get thru because of who they =
are,=20
then get fed the fodder that the CEO or CFO wishes them to =
swallow.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>It's not just SSB's mutual funds, it's the house =
funds of=20
virtually every major wire house. I have seen several studies on mutual =
fund=20
performance, and house funds consistently were in the bottom quartile of =
performance. I never figured out why anyone would buy them. And I come =
from the=20
old school, where the load on a house fund was not only huge by =
comparison, but=20
the broker got a higher payout on his house funds commissions, so there =
was a=20
major conflict of interest.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>And the irony is that I have seen and heard =
situations at=20
the major wire houses where the house analyst would tout a stock to the =
retail=20
brokers to create buying demand so the house funds could unload their =
holdings=20
to them. Guess who was better off by this exercise? Certainly wasn't the =
clients. And still the house funds would underperform.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20
title=3Dadrich@gte.net href=3D"mailto:adrich@gte.net">Fred Richards</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=3Dcanslim@lists.xmission.com=20
href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, July 08, 2002 5:07 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> RE: [CANSLIM] "M"</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>If he=20
means to imply that as an analyst, he did not peruse deeply the 10-k and =
10-q=20
reports as well as the red herrings, he should be drawn &=20
quartered.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>There=20
is simply no excuse for not knowing by a person who is reported to have =
gotten=20
$20 million in salary and bonuses for his analytical=20
expertise.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>But=20
then, you look at the results of any of the Smith Barney mutual funds =
and the=20
lack of performance can be found throughout their entire=20
portfolio.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Why=20
anyone continues to buy and hold the SSB mutual funds is quite frankly =
beyond=20
me.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D500060321-08072002></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]<B>On Behalf Of=20
</B>Mendheart@aol.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, July 08, 2002 3:23=20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> canslim@lists.xmission.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: =
[CANSLIM]=20
"M"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2>In =
a message=20
dated 7/8/02 12:37:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time, wlittle1@peoplepc.com =
writes:<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20
TYPE=3D"CITE">Mendheart:<BR><BR> What in particular =
did you=20
observe or conclude?<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message =
- -----<BR>From:=20
<Mendheart@aol.com><BR>To: =
<canslim@lists.xmission.com><BR>Sent:=20
Monday, July 08, 2002 2:29 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] =
"M"<BR><BR><BR>>=20
Canslimers, et.al.,<BR>><BR>> Now, if you really want to see =
what "M"=20
is all about, just view Jack<BR>> Grubman's(Salomon Smith Barney) =
testimony at the World Com fraud hearing.<BR>No<BR>> wonder we're =
in such=20
difficulty!!<BR>><BR>> Denny=20
(mendheart@aol.com)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well just let me say that =
for a=20
guy who was touting WorldCom for so long who was purportedly "the #1 =
analyst=20
for WorldCom" to say that he really didn't know what was going=20
on....HELLO??? I mean here's a systemic problem and he simply =
states he=20
was lied to....give me a break! Grubman is just like all the =
others=20
except maybe worse given the amount of $$ that he and Salomon Smith =
Barney=20
were compensated by this "lying" firm.<BR><BR>D</FONT>=20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_02C4_01C226DD.E0B26210--
- -
- -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
- -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
- -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email.
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] "M" "Patrick Wahl"
Previous Article (by Subject): [CANSLIM] "M" "Tom Worley"
Top of Thread: [CANSLIM] "M" "Tom Worley"
Next in Thread: [CANSLIM] "M" "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]