>>>It is a whole new system now.<<<
That I am glad to hear, but I'd still have to see just how you approach the individual stocks. I was going to ask you if you were willing to be the last one out every time given your original proposal and parameters. If you were unwilling to take that position, it would underscore to you that there would always be losers (even in your own group) with that strategy.
Not to mention the illegalities. You have to realize that the SEC and, yes, NASD, are very watchfull of things like this. Anybody and everybody that can control 5% of a company in any way, shape, or form, is looked at closely, whether it be individuals, mutual funds, associated companies, etc. The 5% rule was put in place for one reason - to protect the small guy. Your "group" would have worked together to circumvent this restriction and that could really piss some people off at the SEC. There is an exception to the 5% rule with non-reporting companies, but those are the ones you want to advoid anyway.
You still might be in a grey area as far as your new structure. If you can clearly show that the group considers stocks worthy for investment is one thing. Dr. Risk put it very well - if, however, you are simply trying to create volume (through specifically-defined concerted action or not), your are stepping into an area that could really open you up to some exposure and litigation. If you wish to proceed with the group format, concentrate on the former (stocks worthy of investment for reasons other that false momo plays) verses the latter (still manipulation.)
I have to give you some credit, though. At least you were up front about your intentions. I know where you stand. That's a far cry from some of these crafty individuals on SI that draw you in with their BS and then leave you holding the bag. There's good in you yet! :o)
Clo |
