This is an excellent piece. I noticed Thursday and Friday, there were a steady stream of the usual assholes on CNBC........ Einhorn, Ackman, Chanos, the usual suspects. Then, Faber says GEneeds protection, and I'm thinking, 52% of revenues from Finance, they're a target. All these geniuses have 401k's with GE stock, and they are helping themselves to the County Home. I pointed it out to Patch, who is as diligent as anyone, and he did this. It is very good. And it makes a lot of sense. You can see Becky squirm a bit more lately. http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/StockgateToday
the reports on CNBC cant own stocks. It would be like Hank Paulson owning GS still. BTW Faber NEVER said GE needs protection and that conversation you speak of was Friday, not thursday. Your rants are great but get your facts correct. thanks
My facts are very correct. They all have GE. Now go piss up a rope. Thursday, Friday, I'll check my blotter, Junior, cuz I got long into the call. It was only about the time it takes you to have sex, maybe 40, 50 secs, but it was profitable. Just like your date. See. I'm having a nice time, enjoying a little payback, and you upset me.
im actually going to pull a "flytiger", to me that means post crap and just copy and past an article no one is intrested in. Question for you? if the no short list did not come out until very late Thursday night, how did david faber say GE should be on this list Thursday? BTW here is what i read in the NY Times and got my information. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E2DB1230F930A25752C0A9629C8B63 CNBC, the business-oriented cable network owned by General Electric, laid down new restrictions yesterday on the trading of stocks and bonds by its employees and their immediate relatives. Taking one of the hardest lines to head off financial conflicts of interest in the media industry, CNBC said that its managers and news staff and their spouses and dependents would no longer be allowed to own individual securities, other than those of their employers. The rest of the network's full-time employees, all the way down to those who apply makeup and hairspray to guests, will be able to keep any securities they own, but will not be allowed to buy more. The changes came five months after the network received criticism for letting a star reporter, Maria Bartiromo, interview Sanford I. Weill, the chairman of Citigroup, after disclosing that she owned 1,000 shares of the company's stock. Other CNBC reporters and anchors have told viewers about various stock holdings, as they were required to under the network's previous policy. Responding to Ms. Bartiromo's disclosure in late July, Robert M. Steele, the senior faculty and ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, said in an interview then that ''Disclosure doesn't resolve a conflict of interest; all it does is reveal that a conflict exists.'' Several news organizations, including The Wall Street Journal and BusinessWeek magazine, bar reporters from writing about companies in which they own a stake. CNBC's policies were less restrictive, though they were stricter than those of some other news organizations, like Fortune magazine and Fox News. Now they are among the toughest in the industry. Al Tompkins, who teaches ethics courses at Poynter, a nonprofit organization in St. Petersburg, Fla., that studies the news media, applauded CNBC executives for making changes before they had to respond to a scandal involving the finances of a staff member. ''Good for them for actually doing something while their pants aren't on fire,'' Mr. Tompkins said. ''The Maria thing was a dust-up compared to what could happen to them.'' CNBC executives would not comment about the reasons for the changes. In a statement, a CNBC spokeswoman, Amy Zelvin, said: ''CNBC's reputation for integrity is paramount to what we do and is key to our viewers. We continually work to set the highest possible standards in everything we do, which is our role as the industry leader.'' The prohibition on buying securities is effective now, but the network set a deadline of Jan. 31, 2005, for managers and news staff members to sell the corporate securities they own or to place them into blind trusts. They will continue to be able to invest in mutual funds. The extension of the policies to all employees of the network and to their spouses and other members of their households -- even mothers-in-law who live with them -- goes beyond what most news organizations have adopted, Mr. Tompkins said. Mr. Tompkins said he found the clamp-down on investing activities by relatives curious because NBC, the sister network of CNBC, has drawn criticism for employing as news reporters Andrea Mitchell, the wife of the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, and Maria Shriver, the wife of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Few journalists outside of CNBC were aware of the network's policy change yesterday. One who had been briefed on it was Paul Steiger, the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, which has a partnership with CNBC. ''It's a good, smart, tight plan and ideally tailored to a TV network where the reporters are often dealing on air with a broad range of topics,'' Mr. Steiger said. He said that CNBC's move brought up some interesting ideas about possible changes in policies at The Journal, but added that ''It certainly isn't going to cause us to tear up ours and start over again.''
Keith, what don't you get? There are several reports regarding how Jeff Immelt begged the SEC to get on the no-short list. CNBC has been a long time short seller apologist and it was just last week Gasparino fawned over Chanos. the mantra has always been, those CEO's that go after short sellers have something to hide. CNBC employees have their 401K's buying GE stock. that makes them shareholders in a company whining about short sellers. once immelt begged for mercy CNBC changed their attitude on how they attack CEO's. Other paper's and media are rediculing Immelt for begging for this mercy and CNBC has 100% shut their mouths on the subject. Hypocrisy at best. Best in it all, Charlie Gasparino tried to play tough with me when I asked him why he changed his stripes when it was his money at stake.
Hey i agree with you, if GE wants to be on the Short List then they should trade at the PE of a bank. When i've have been on CNBC and they asked what stocks i wanted to talk about, they told me not to discuss GE. I was just giving you the article i fond that said "EMPLOYEES cant own individual stocks". Last time i checked GE is an indivual stock. Hey my article may be outdated, but i checked my facts before i sent my post. Maybe they can own it, or maybe my article is outdated, but this was all i found.
Yes, but GE is their employer, so they can have GE. Maybe read your own article and "check your facts" before saying they can't own GE as an individual stock.
You've never seen Haines or Faber lament when the stock swoons? Of course they own GE. It's in their 401K's. The whole idea of the thread is, they laud the people, just like Floyd Norris does, destroying the stock of their parent - the stock they own. There is no end to the stupidity, when , for one bright and shining moment on WallSt the sociopaths had all the money, and threw it at politicians and the press. Remember in High School? Everyone wanted to hang with the quarterback. The exchange student from Hong Kong with the tape on his glasses had no friends. Now, he makes 500 a year designing wafers. The Quarterback is knockin' back a shot at 8 am. Same here. The glory boys bought all the right folks. Now, they are scorned. Someday, we'll talk about the great job market for bodyguards. Some of the biggest are using small armys. How come? The individual stock thing came from Cramer's problem. But I did hear Maria a while ago disclaim she had shares in an interview subject. C maybe. I don't know how she got away with that. But the GE they all own. Patchie was swapping emails with them taunting them. They own it. Any good capitalist, like the Chinese and Russians, would want them employees to own the stock.