Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Daytrading Canadian stocks in Realtime -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (16745)	6/15/1999 10:59:00 PM
From: VisionsOfSugarplums	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 62348

Almost didn't post this but hit a couple of nerves (not directed personally at you Russet) - this will be my only post so as not to drag it out: Perception is reality. What is posted on the internet is incredibly pervasive. When facts are in error, comments are biased, and there is no balance, opinions are influenced. The growth of stock chat boards and the communication between boards (and between the financial industry)can influence people's perception of a stock like wildfire. The damage done is very difficult to reverse - first impressions last a long time and protracted negative campaigns reach a large number of people that remember, if not all the points made, at least the negativity. The herd mentality reigns. We all know how the market overreacts to rumours and facts - people buy on rumour, etc. A negative campaign can hurt the company and the company's shareholders. It will influence the stock price, the degree to which is dependant on the pervasiveness of the campaign. Having been in a similar situation and taken phone calls from shareholders regarding the issue, and also having contacted the internet service that provided the misleading information, there's not a whole lot a company can do on behalf of its shareholders unless the company sues. This is only practical in large cases. And once the information has been published, it is out there. You may be able to subsequently remove it, but it is now part of the rumour mill, people remember it. And you may not have been able to remove it. And a lot a poeple read it, take it at face value, and don't bother to phone you. It is very difficult, actually impossible, to monitor all the information that is disseminated about a public company on the internet. Sometimes too the company will issue information and it is redistributed inaccurately or in part by others. Most companies will not see inaccurate facts or rumours posted about themselves unless a shareholder calls or if factual errors become so widespread that it is then noticed by the company. Bad info hurts the shareholders, always. I don't think I've ever seen a negative campaign that expresses only opinions - ie "I think the company stinks but I have no support for my opinion". Distorted facts or statements taken out of context or complete falsehoods can be presented (or true facts). Should a company go after the individuals posting negative campaigns? - absolutely, if it is justified. Of course, this will always be limited by issues of practicality so this does not mean it's open season on all persons who post misleading facts. And, where the information provided is true, then the poster has little to worry about and it is very unlikely the company would sue them. I don't think you'll find too many companies that really want to go after these people unless the issue is big and they have a chance of winning. Costs money, time , and is a pain. Insider trading - one of our securities lawyers used to always say that there's really only one or two days in the year where it is safe for an insider to trade in the stock of the company he works for, and it's not because the the person may be trading on inside information, only that he may be perceived to be trading on inside information. This is so true. Insiders will be phoned if the stock goes down after they sold, doesn't matter if it's months later and whether or not there was an extraneous reason the stock went down that could not have been known. It's OK for shareholders to follow up, though, if you ask me. Securities regulators, do a poor job of monitoring insider reporting. Penalties are rarely imposed and so a lot of insiders don't take reporting seriously, file late or forget to file at all. Penalties are available but aren't usually enforced. Reportable insiders, however, are not the real problem, IMO. Analysts and brokerage companies and insititutions find out what is going on in a company first (especially when the company is working on a deal that may need financing). They're in on the cheap financings (and set the price for them). This, to me, is the biggest crock in the industry. They pick up cheap stock, make buy or sell recommendations, or decide to go into a stock or sell a stock first - big volumes. They're the biggest influence on major fluctuations on a stock price - they set the premiums, they set the discount, and they do it using information they get before the little guy does. Maybe the growth of discount brokerages and online IPOs will eventually weaken this influence - less money in mutual funds, access to a broader base of investors to float an issue rather than a concentration of shares through one house. But then again, maybe not. Just one person's opinion. Regards, t.