it's up to the moderator to decide, not me.
Yes, but as Rick, rkrw and Julius have suggested, there are some reasons for the chair to rule the UNVC entry out of bounds.
I'd argue that UNVC, as not investable etc., violates the rule that "All is to be done with conscience, comity and common sense." No one could buy 312,500 shares of UNVC even if he were daft enough to want to. It's not potentially a real investment, so it should not be part of this sort of portfolio.
It also would seem to violate the "Prudent person" rule, or at least "penchant", for "investing, not gambling" entries.
Whether or not it violates any specific rule -- this is not a legalistic enterprise, and Mike doesn't need to draw up a securities code or a penal code to start this contest -- UNVC is plainly outside the general thrust of the contest for reality.
Mr. Chairman? |
