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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mr. Pink's Picks: selected event-driven value investments -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: musicguy who wrote (10044)	6/24/1999 2:25:00 PM
From: Andrew H	Respond to of 18998

>>The fact that he very likely HAS a brokers license but has hidden that fact is deplorable and illegal.<< Well, if that is the case, I suspect the SEC will be looking into it. Combined with the fact that he is apparently being sued by HITT, Mr. Pink may indeed be shrinking.

To: musicguy who wrote (10044)	6/24/1999 3:00:00 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18998

Speaking only for myself, it is not punks position on the trade that bothers me, but his smug superior attitude and megalomaniacal disposition. Then P has succeeded in pissing you off, which he tries to do to people for his own amusement. Has little or nothing to do with the stock at issue. And people keep falling for it. Pretty amusing, I have to admit. C'mon folks, these are little black letters on a screen, not reality.

To: musicguy who wrote (10044)	6/24/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18998

> it is not [His] position on the trade that bothers me, but [H]is smug superior attitude and megalomaniacal disposition < Give us all a break. If it weren't for ICTC, you wouldn't even be here. > The fact that [H]e very likely HAS a brokers license but has hidden that fact is deplorable and illegal. < I suggest you check the laws again. There's nothing illegal about a broker commenting on stocks that he/she owns. If that were the case, none of the analysts on the street would be able to say a thing, because their companies almost always own some position in the stocks they are commenting on, and in many cases they own such postions individually. Fact of the matter is, there is NO DIFFERENCE between "commenting on a stock" and "issuing a recommendation," as one of you guys implied. Both are public statements, which are available for free to anybody who wants them. Now, start charging for your advice, and things get a bit more complicated. If the advice is generic and targeted at a large audience, then you're no different from thousands of newsletters or advisory services. No license required and generally protected by the First Amendment. Start tailoring the advice to individual needs or answering specific questions from individuals on a private basis, and you get into the area of "financial consulting" which usually requires a license. Some brokerages have rules about their employees' public comments. Some don't. Generally the rules restrict trading in an issue for some number of days PRIOR to a material public statement being issued, but don't restrict the commentary. mg