Who, if anyone, is to blame for the worst excesses of the market bubble?

Did market analysts touted stocks?

Did "irrational exuberance" give way to fraud?

Even if no laws were broken, was the way in which brokerage firms did business ethical?

Did the late 1990s give rise to unethical and even illegal practices by major brokerage firms?

Why did the system work the way it did?

Who, paid the bill?

What are the prospects for reform?

Several analysts symbolize the "intellectual hollowness" of the bubble's headiest days! They will now become the target of many investor lawsuits claiming that they concealed conflicts of interest as they touted stocks on television and in print.

But did analysts do anything wrong? Did brokerage firms and listed companies officials used the media as a conduit for stock-market hype?

News Wire: April 28, 2003

"Considered the largest overall monetary payment in Wall Street history, after four months of quibbling over the final terms of the Wall Street settlement, a finalized deal has been made.

Ten Wall Street banks have been accused of giving biased company research in order to gain investment banking business. The finalized settlement has been long anticipated but took awhile to reach because the firms were trying to avoid increased liabilities due to the billions of additional dollars they are expected to pay in private securities fraud lawsuits.

Three banks, including the nation's largest investment firms, have evidence of fraud, including Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney unit, Credit Suisse First Boston, and Merrill Lynch.

Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney will pay the largest fine at $300 million. Citigroup will also pay $75 million to go towards an independent research fund and $25 million towards an investor education program."

Crying Foul and Laughing out LOUD ...

$25 million towards an investor education program!

And now ... WHAT?

Who is ready?

Are YOU?