<HTML>In a message dated 12/22/02 5:30:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, carlremick@hotmail.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">G.E.'s stock price declined by 35 percent during the period, a dismal performance, to be sure, but hardly the worst among major companies. But G.E.'s $398 billion market capitalization at the beginning of the year was so high that the fall in its stock price destroyed shareholders' wealth in colossal proportions. The $140 billion loss was bigger than the entire market cap of any one of the four next-biggest losers on the list — Intel, Tyco International, AOL Time Warner and I.B.M. — according to Morningstar data. </BLOCKQUOTE> And yet, despite all the recent Wall Street coming to its knees in fines fanfare and all the big bank promises to revise analyst rating practices - the NY Times poll of analysts gives GE an average 'buy' rating. The Yahoo Finance poll scored GE at a 2.1 (1 = buy, 5 = sell) up from 2.4 last week. So, a 35% loss in market value must be followed by a gain? Or more of the same standard of corporate analysis? Nomi </HTML>