Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony,

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LPS5 who wrote (58543)	8/11/2000 7:10:29 PM
From: peter_moreno	Read Replies (1) of 122087

I think we are arguing different points and at at cross purposes. Now: If the interpretation of Druss' scenario is that some engineer had been up on the hill years before and said (either publicly or to himself): "When I was up there, there was no gold, and there ain't none now!", and traded off of such: such information might be privileged, and it might not. That scenario could swing both ways, because while such knowledge is inarguably material, arguments could be made that such information was, by that time, public (ie, a PR years before saying that the location had no gold). Sorry disagree totally! If the work done was unrelated to BreX I see no problem and the person who undertook the work (or who commissioned the work) has the right to trade based on the work they did. Public or not! That is, IMO, the relevance to what was being discussed on the thread. Peter

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next