Dedicated to tklaw
From the posting: And Our Financial Press Drives Up A Stock!
- tklaw said...
That's great. Moolah, I am so eager to know those irresponsible stock boosters sucking blood secretly from retail investors. It will definitely help… serve as a first level firewall to alert the blacklisted financial journalist/analyst from investment banker. They should bear the blame for low participation of retail investors in KLSE. Many thanks.
21st April 2009: According To Sources: Proton To... Stock of course rallied but later that evening, the whole thing was denied by Proton. According To Dunno What Rumours: Proton Is NOT ..
The trading data for DRB for April 2009: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=1619.KL&a=03&b=1&c=2009&d=03&e=30&f=2009&g=d
Then came the massive article on 21st April! Huge speculative article was out. DRB was deemed as a huge potential beneficiary IF Proton was to divest Proton Edar to EON!
Needless to say, trading got extremely hot on the 21st April 2009!
With the news on the 21st April 2009, this give a whole new understanding on what was happening the previous trading day with the stock experiencing a massive sudden increase in trading volume. How did the market 'know'? Isn't it incredible that the market could 'know' before hand a sexy story would be published on the stock?
And since Proton denied everything... by the 15th May 2009, DRB fell to as low as 93 sen.
Do review that article on the 21st April 2009 again. According To Sources: Proton To...
28 May 2008: More Typical Poor Financial Reporting Again!
9 May 2008: According to Sources Yet Again!
18 June 2007: Do you think that Bursa should take action against misleading reporting? and According to Sources: Ranhill Strikes Oil!!!!!!!!
13 June 2007: TWSCorp
14 May 2007: What lies the future of OUR Financial News
4 Jan 2007: Same old, same old start to the New Year!!! (** Recommended **)
Dec 2006: Where is the Integrity of Our Financial Press? ( ** Highly recommended ** )
There are actually many more articles.
Sigh.
Posts
14 comments:
Rule #1 : Don't believe anything OSK writes in their coverage report.
Rule #2 : Ditto for K&N.
Rule #3 : Ditto-ditto for CIMB.
Rule #4 : Ditto-ditto-ditto for The Edge.
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
4 rules eh? :P
Thanks Richard. Anymore rules?
tklaw: most of the articles highlighted, did you notice who was the writer?
Apparently, Jose Barrock is the best magician in Malaysia. I was impressed by his shows. We have been searching the right gems…..really hard to get one. He did it easily by wrapping a stone and labeled ‘according to sources ‘ then show us ‘this is the diamond I have discovered’. He has simplified the ways to transform a stone into diamond. So he should be awarded a new title....What title is suitable for his invention, Moolah?
My thinking is simple.
If and when he publish a story, needless to say, the stock shoots up, and when we discovered the story has no absolute basis, ie everyone denies the story published, then I believe he should reveal who exactly was the source.
Why?
Well the public needs to know if the said 'sources' is simply 'tembaking' or not?
Or does the 'sources' even exist in the first place?
And since such articles continues to repeated with such high frequencies (and for so many years), then surely the public needs to know if anyone is profiting from the articles written?
Yes is anyone profiting from those articles!
And even if the story proves real, doesn't mean this is a 'leaked' news? And since it's leaked news and there was stock movement before the publication of the article, then shouldn't we need to know if this constitutes 'insider trading'?
Me?
I have nothing but questions.
I think the core problem come from the chief editor and board of the financial press. Further, the relevant authority is too generous to tolerate such irresponsible approach in publishing seductive articles. It seems that the existing shareholders and financial journalist and its associates are the winners. Who dare to lose face by complaining to authority after suffering losses on fully relying facts of an article? Those speculators should have known the level of risks involved before joining the crowd. We can reduce the risks by reading blogging from Moolah.
Why shouldn't the authority question what is happening?
Reporter write, stock flies, company denies what is happening.
Reporter writes again.
And again.
And again.
Is this acceptable with everyone?
I should not limit the category winners...it is too ugly to imagine further. It has become a norm in our society ....mentally accepted the existance of misleading financial news. It's not criminal so why need to bother more attitude of the authority.
:)
Well if it's denied by the companies mentioned, won't you say it is misleading and inaccurate?
Is it deemed ok that we have all this misleading and inaccurate stuff?
And I wonder if there is monetary profit involved?
I believe that monetary gain is the main driving force behind the rumors. Many parties have been trying to take advantage of lacking enforcement market. Our stock market is almost like money printing machine to certain group of people.
I won’t discount the existence of playing a trick on public following the denial of accusation. The integrity of the company management is questionable most of the time. We know that all these stuffs are not morally accepted but we can’t avoid it in our life. At the moment, what can I do……try to keep away from all these traps la.
Keep away from such 'traps' is good for our own personal monetary health! I fully agree.
However, if nothing is ever done about it.... how then?
Would it ever solve anything?
I agree something must be done to restore the integrity of financial media. However, our authority doesn’t even bother to take tough action.
They are fully aware something wrongs somewhere morally but what if they remain silent and let our financial media freely taking advantage of ‘according to sources’ in this ‘unregulated‘ segment. How?
It’s very simple to local investors. They would simply diverse part of their portfolio to safer playing ground elsewhere. : )
How nice if our regulator agree to adopt comments from Seng:
Ideally, if the Star wants to keep on reporting "market rumours", then, they should do 2 things:
1. Change the caption from
"Ranhill Bhd strikes oil"
to
"MARKET RUMOUR: Ranhill Bhd strikes oil?"
2. Put a Disclaimer at the bottom of the article such as:
"DISCLAIMER: This is a market rumour which has not been substantiated by the company as fact. Speculate on rumours at your own risk."
If the Star is unable to do these 2 things, or to clearly differentiate rumours from facts, then, we - as a society - should never allow such rumour reporting by the Star. It would be a huge misabuse of power by the Star.
Regards,
Seng.
Post a Comment