That was an excellent reply to my question Mudguy. You are right, its pretty much the way it went.
I did talk to ES a few times and it was always sunshine and unicorns (but not crossing legal lines). Because of his position I assigned way too much weight to what he said and invested more that I should have or didn't sell after the discussion. People in positions like his need to be more careful what they say because they are in a position of trust and they have inside info to base their promoting on?
I don't know if you remember Liddy? She lived in Mexico, and her phone was internet based and all her calls were recorded. She had a long and specific conversation with ES, and she posted the transcript on AG. It was reported that ES was furious! The answers were way too optimistic, bordering on material (if they were in fact true). That was a great example of why the "call the office" method shouldn't be allowed. A lot was said that could never go in a NR, and it turned out little of what was said was congruent with reality anyways.
The NRs and especially the cautionary notes were much more realistic, the notes being the harbinger of things to come...
When you said this:
"Sure, Elmer picks up the phone and will talk to you- he is a promoter, first and foremost, so you bet he and all of his penny stock peers will."
My first thought this shouldn't be allowed. The BOD or CEO should not be promoters directly - they should have to communicate with shareholders in writing with proper cautionary statements BECAUSE their words hold a lot more influence that a paid promoter like Rick Mills for example. Information from the CEO's mouth holds way too much sway IMHO.
With such strong regulations regarding news releases, why should the company be able to say almost anything over the phone (excluding inside or material info)?
If this is common on the venture, maybe this is why the exchange's reputation is so bad?
I know they are trying to build credibility - this would be a good place to start. |
