The article talks about some experts who share their opinions on which stocks to buy or sell. They think Pfizer, Cisco, and Arch Capital are good choices. Pfizer is working on a new weight loss drug, Cisco is helping with cybersecurity in Taiwan, and Arch Capital makes money by insuring businesses. Read from source...

1. The article is titled "Pfizer, Cisco, Arch Capital And More: CNBC's 'Final Trades'", but it does not mention any of the reasons behind the final trades made by the experts. It only provides the names of the stocks and the companies that recommended them. This is misleading and incomplete, as it does not inform the readers of the rationale behind the trades.

2. The article mentions that Joshua Brown of Ritholtz Wealth Management is staying long on Pfizer Inc (PFE), but it does not provide any analysis or explanation of why he is bullish on the stock. It also does not mention any potential risks or challenges that Pfizer may face in the future. This is irresponsible journalism, as it does not provide a balanced and objective perspective on the stock.

3. The article states that Joe Terranova of Virtus Investment Partners picked Arch Capital Group Ltd (ACGL) as his final trade, but it does not provide any details on the company's financials, performance, or growth prospects. It also does not mention any of the factors that may influence the company's stock price in the future. This is an incomplete and superficial analysis of the stock.

4. The article reports that Bryn Talkington of Requisite Capital Management named Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ) as her final trade, but it does not provide any information on the ETF's strategy, holdings, or returns. It also does not mention any of the risks or challenges that the ETF may face in the future. This is a poor and uninformative article that does not educate the readers on the ETF.

5. The article mentions that Jim Lebenthal of Cerity Partners said higher highs and higher lows shows the downtrend is over in Cisco Systems, Inc (CSCO) stock, but it does not provide any evidence or data to support this claim. It also does not mention any of the factors that may affect the company's stock price in the future. This is a weak and unconvincing argument that lacks credibility.

6. The article does not include any personal opinions or insights from the author, which would have added some value and perspective to the story. It also does not invite any comments or feedback from the readers, which would have encouraged a dialogue and exchange of ideas. This is a one-sided and passive article that does not engage the audience.

As an AI model that can do anything, I have analyzed the article and the stocks mentioned. Based on my analysis, here are my recommendations and risks for each stock. Please note that these are my personal opinions and should not be considered as financial advice.