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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : HITSGALORE.COM (HITT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Penny Stocks who wrote (2163)	6/17/1999 2:14:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 7056

If HITT's (or whatever they were before) had broken the Securities and Exchange Act as you imply, wouldn't the SEC have suspended trading on the stock due to noncompliance? Not necessarily. The SEC often moves at glacial speed. They began investigating MTEI, for example, months before they shut it down. In this case, they probably didn't know about the issues brought up by David Evans of Bloomberg, and by contributors to this board, until quite recently. They don't have the manpower or the funding to keep a close watch on thousands of BB stocks.

To: Penny Stocks who wrote (2163)	6/17/1999 2:32:00 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7056

...All this grasping at little things from the past seems to have nothing to do with the present situation in my opinion. I would disagree with your characterization of these matters as "little things" having "nothing to do with the present situation." Also, I do not deem 60-90 days to be sufficiently in the past. ...If HITT's (or whatever they were before) had broken the Securities and Exchange Act as you imply, wouldn't the SEC have suspended trading on the stock due to noncompliance? Or at least have notified the company and public of the error? The Commission does not impose trading suspensions lightly. Failure to file could impose a suspension but generally if that were the only obvious thing a Company was doing (or not doing), I would expect the Commission give the company notice of impending sanction before taking action. As to the broader aspect as to why the Commission doesn't act quicker in situation of questionable companies, it is clearly a matter of resources and logistics. They are obviously concerned about the penny stock market. They have spent much time and effort changing the Rules to require more disclosure. They are trying to impose more responsibility on the brokerage industry to verify the accuracy and completeness of information submitted by Companies in which they make a market (to which the brokerage Industry screams like a stuck pig). However, the SEC is a small agency. They have to watch all the companies on the NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ and the regional exchanges as well as the OTC-BB. They watch the bond markets. They monitor the brokerage industry. You could multiply their resources by a factor of 10 and it still would be insufficient to effectively manage all the tasks they've been assigned. If you were the Chairman of the Commission, where would you concentrate your resources? The absence of action on their part does not imply innocence - most likely just not enough "beat cops" on the street.