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 : CDN. MOMO PUPPIES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Pakstas who wrote (18340)	1/5/2000 5:02:00 PM
From: Rocket Red	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36688

WOW just walked in the door and Checked the Closes.YE-HA Got to love it. I see everyone is in now.Great I can't see how CC will be able to do a Financing at .30c when the stock is over 2 Dollars now.No Way should the CDNX should let this happen. CC was arranging a PP on Best efforts on this .30PP I guess we will see what Happens. Cheers.

To: Ed Pakstas who wrote (18340)	1/5/2000 5:30:00 PM
From: russet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36688

Two messages from the President of Marum Resources (MMU-CDNX) Rick Boulay, to a poster on the thread detailing what is happening regards surveillance on the new CDNX exchange. Seems to be going backwards. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=12472209 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:29:45 -0700 From: "Richard Boulay" <boulay@canuck.com> To: "Stewart Murray" <smurray@videon.wave.ca> For your information there was an interesting, although incorrect, set of observations posted on the SI thread regarding surveillance matters connected with the migration of ASE and VSE companies to the new CDNX exchange. Here are the facts: Surveillance matters for former ASE companies continue to be handled under the old ASE rules by the old ASE surveillance department. This will continue until the end of February when the new CDNX rules will take effect. There is will not be any significant change in surveillance compliance. Frankly, none that I know of. Under the CDNX computer system (actually the old VSE system, an extremely stable system and a tribute to the best of late-1970's computer technology) surveillance is greatly diminished, compared to the ASE computer system. The ASE system was discontinued in September, a month or so before the official change to the CDNX. Surveillance-wise, the CDNX system is significantly degraded since the ASE system, using mid-1990's software technology, allowed surveilance officials and manager of public companies to obtain live data on trading statistics, including running tallies of pro-trades during the day, plus a lot of other forensic data. Overall the surveillance scene is unchanged in terms of regulatory requirements but significantly reduced in terms of our ability to see what is happening in real time. Feel free to post this providing you attribute it directly to me. Regards, Rick Boulay Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:24:13 -0700 From: "Richard Boulay" <boulay@canuck.com> To: "Stewart Murray" <smurray@videon.wave.ca> References: 1 There are two aspects to surveillance. The administrative stuff involving policy and staff, and then the computer system that delivers the information. At this point in time the CDNX, both Calgary and Vancouver offices are, and will continue to use, the old, stable VSE system. The Calgary office switched over to this system in September. My point was that from a surveillance point of view the adminstrators have less information than on the newer, disconnected ASE system which provided real time surveillance data. Using the CDNX (i.e. VSE system) they have to submit (overnight) batch requests on specific companies to break out detailed trading information at a level useful for forensic analysis. On the administrative side, companies can elect to operate under the old rules until February 28th or alternatively operate under the new CDNX rules. For example, you can apply for a private placement under either the old ASE or new CDNX rules until the end of February. From a surveillance viewpoint the ASE companies are being "surveilled" out of the Calgary offices until the end of February under the old ASE and current ASC (Alberta Securities Commission) rules. After that, I don't know because I have not bothered to ask. Its not really important that operators of public companies know about the surveillance stuff because is pretty well automatic and the different rules, old vs. new, are not materially different. I hope that clears up the imprecision in my earlier message Regards, Rick Boulay"