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.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Whirlwind who wrote (8151)	10/10/1999 1:12:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81087

Alan, I don't believe that Armstrong, or his lawyer, are admitting guilt at all. If his banker/brokerage(Republic) was shifting funds from one account to another to meet external collateral requirements in order to meet requirements put forth as a result of the HSBC acquisition of Republic, that could certainly screw up your trading positions. If Republic was providing his accounts the necessary leverage and credit requirements for his style of trading, AND THEN they suddenly revoke or renege on those credit arrangements, of course he would be put in a position of liquidating his positions to meet collateral requirements. And then of course he would lose money on those positions because the word would get out that he needed to unload them. What I found most interesting was the fact that these notes that Princeton/Armstrong were selling were not at face value, thus the customer was only putting up a small portion of the redemption value. That fact alone, and the way the regulators and others have been trying to assert that Armstrong defrauded these Japanese investors of $1 Billion (and not just the original principle invested) makes this appear to be a railroading on the part of the prosecutors. I'm not saying that he is guilty or innocent... But I am saying that it certainly isn't as clear cut as anyone would like to claim it is. Especially when the depositors are receiving rebates (kickbacks?) showing that this was, if anything, a two-way transaction with all eyes wide open as to what was going down. Hard to defraud an investor of money, when the "investor" was in fact embezzling that money and receiving kickbacks. And we all know how corrupt Japanese business and governmental officials can be. This will be an interesting case to watch. I imagine there will be surprises. Regards, Ron