Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1
I loved the article regarding stock ratings. Although I'm a rookie to investing, I saw from the begining that if I gave the analyst's much weight I would be worse off than doing my own math and research.

Thanks Rex,"The central scrutinizer," Moore, for a great article.

goldenbb

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
It seems a bit disingenuous to me for the brokerage firms to suddenly say, "OK, call off the attack dogs and we won't announce 'buy,' 'hold' or 'sell' recommendations anymore since we were obviously conflicted."

Now I don't know if what they did was exactly illegal; is it against the law to shout "buy" even if you think "sell?" I just don't know. But if it is, and that's what they were doing, then I don't see why the attack dogs should be called off. Just because they were caught red-handed and now feel remorse doesn't mean they should be excused for their prior misdeeds.

If it was illegal what they did, and it can be proved they did it, then they should be prosecuted regardless of their vows to be good in the future. They should be prosecuted and vow not to defraud anyone again.

Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think that even if there weren't specific laws against misleading investors, then they would probably be violating some consumer fraud laws.

I totally agree that they should be hung out to dry. A person should be able to trust that any professional advisor (lawyer, accountant, financial planner, whatever) is going to give honest advice. Now if they gave honest advice and it was wrong, well, that happens but was apparently not the case here.

John

PS Rich, how do you do italics and bold lettering in posts?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Regarding italics and bold lettering, instructions for this and more are available at:

http://www.fool.com/community/foolboards/bells.htm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think that even if there weren't specific laws against misleading investors, then they would probably be violating some consumer fraud laws.

Companies that offer investment advice to their clients are held, under the law, to have a *fiduciary responsibility* to provide the most accurate advice possible. For a licensed broker to intentionally deceive their clients about the desirability of a stock is both criminal and a cause for civil action.

This, by the way, is one reason that discount brokers make a huge deal about trades being "unsolicited" and disclaiming any advisory role.

-- Mark
Print the post Back To Top