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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alex who wrote (40268)	9/13/1999 11:57:00 PM
From: Tom Byron	Respond to of 117016

thanks alex...mr f is on a roll....:) this could last for days.

To: Alex who wrote (40268)	9/14/1999 12:15:00 AM
From: Follies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 117016

Dont get smug about this. Armstrong has been arrested so he WON'T be able to testify about anything to GATA. Janet Reno and the SEC will keep Martin out of harms way but none of the charges will amount to anything.

To: Alex who wrote (40268)	9/14/1999 12:43:00 AM
From: PaulM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 117016

CFTC Files Civil Charges Against Armstrong This the the AP article, most interesting yet. "The promissory notes were supposed to be conservative investments but instead were used as fuel for Armstrong's failing investment prowess, according to a portrait provided by court documents and releases." "The trouble began in earnest for Armstrong when he racked up about a half billion dollars worth of trading losses from November 1997 through August 1999, prosecutors said." "Besides the criminal and SEC civil charges, the U.S. Commodities and Futures Trading Commission filed civil charges against Armstrong, Princeton Economics International and various affiliates." biz.yahoo.com Alex, I think the CFTC suit is a curious development. I don't know if you remember in connection with the LTCM, but Greenspan at the time made it clear that he felt CFTC should not have jurisdiction over derivatives. So to me, this development suggests one of two things: the CFTC believes it does have jurisdiction over derivatives, OR the CFTC suit is about some independent, commodity-trade related allegation. Or perhaps the CFTC is relying on its regulation of foreign currency trades?