In your article on Facebook in the June 15 issue, you state that the price of the stock was “artificially inflated by Morgan Stanley.” That turned out to be the case, de facto, in this case. I think that as a part of the package of bringing an IPO to market they agreed to support it for a limited period of time (I don’t think they bought it while it was going up, but correct me if I’m wrong). But how does that help them? If they “purchased huge blocks of stock” and the stock then plummets as it did in this case, aren’t they holding huge blocks of stock worth substantially less than they paid for them? I see a lot wrong with the Facebook IPO and you outline much of it, but this particular action doesn’t worry me in terms of “Juicing the Stock.” At least not unless you can show me how they profited from it.

I think more or less the same comment can be made about Cramer. I don’t see what he had to gain by touting a stock big time that then immediately droped substantially. It calls into question his ability, and unless he received some kind of under the table payment for it, I don’t see what he can possibly gain. I happen to agree with you that Cramer is overrated. But he does have some knowledge of the market and makes valid points on many occasions. He is probably better than nothing for those who know very little about the market. It appears that he makes many more recommendations than he can possibly research well and sells his opinions partly with theatrics, but he does have some analytical skill and probably is not guilty of recommending stocks that he thinks are likely to fall.

Emil Kreider
Harrisonburg, VA
(subscriber)