Gość: jr
IP: 202.76.174.*
03.07.03, 01:54
moja krucjate przeciw 'wyznawcom' fal elliotta uwazam za zakonczona - TO JEST
HORSESHIT.
ponoc meryll lynch stratedzy sa nie tylko wyznawcami falowymi ale takze
starali sie byc bogiem i kierowac cenami akcji - ot aby udowodnic obledna
teorie chyba!
drodzy koledzy powtorze raz jeszcze: lepsze szanse na dochody z gieldy maja
ci co sluchaja wrozki niz ci co kreskuja fale elliotta.
jest tylko jedna recepta na sukces. dobra znajomosc pozycji finansowej firmy,
przyszle plany no i pozostaje sie modlic ze to co wiemy nie jest wynikiem
sfalszowanych/spekulacyjnych informacji...
Merrill lynch mob pilloried
By Rodney Dalton, New York correspondent
July 03, 2003
WALL Street's biggest firms have taken their medicine. Now it's the
investors' turn.
Dismissing class-action suits against Merrill Lynch and former top analyst
Henry Blodget, US federal judge Milton Pollack yesterday did not bother to
sugarcoat the pill.
The investors were "high-risk speculators" who, having played and lost,
now "hope to twist the federal securities laws into a scheme of cost-free
speculators' insurance".
By trying to blame Merrill Lynch for the internet stock bubble, they were
asking the court to conclude that the laws were there to "encourage their
rash speculation in joining a freewheeling casino that lured thousands
obsessed with the fantasy of Olympian riches".
In an often scathing tone, Judge Pollack said the investors had lost fair and
square and had only themselves to blame.
The decision is welcome news for Wall Street firms, trying to shake off the
stigma of dodgy research practices brought to light in emails uncovered by
New York State Attorney-General Eliot Spitzer.
Merrill Lynch paid a $100 million fine in 2002 and kicked in another $100
million to settle civil charges as part of a $1.4 billion global settlement
between 10 securities firms and regulators over the use of research tailored
to win investment banking business.
Investors have since lined up against the Wall Street firms to recoup
internet bubble losses, but Judge Pollack's decision makes that less likely.
By investing in internet companies 24/7 Real Media and Interliant, investors
had "knowingly spun an extremely high-risk, high-stakes wheel of fortune".
The 96-year-old judge said he was "utterly unconvinced" that Merrill Lynch
had tried to defraud investors. He withheld judgement on cases involving 25
other stocks.
The decisions pushed Merrill Lynch shares up $1.52 to $48.20, Goldman Sachs
shares rose $2.10 to close at $85.85, Morgan Stanley shares rose $1.44 to
$44.19, and Credit Suisse American depositary receipts rose 18c to $26.50.
"It is a positive headline, but I don't think this litigation is over,"
Burnham Financial Services fund manager Anton Schutz told Bloomberg. "If it
were, these stocks would be up a lot more."
In the Merrill Lynch case, plaintiffs argued that their losses were caused by
predictions contained in misleading research reports.
Judge Pollack noted that none of the plaintiffs' claims to have read the
reports or been a Merrill Lynch customer.
Addressing the plaintiffs' suggestion that Merrill Lynch knew that the
bursting of the internet bubble was imminent, the judge offered a lecture on
future stock prices.
"Predictions of future trading prices in the stock market are inherently
speculative," he wrote.
