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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hank who wrote (7158)	4/3/2000 5:25:00 AM
From: Eddy Blinker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Within the Shorters nature to conspire with every kind of market force. Hank, I was not sure to answer your away from the issue directed question in reference to full disclosure as far as insider selling action is concerned. One of the reasons is found in the absence of any leagal documented and clear definition of the term " insider trading ". Utilizing numerous kinds of search criteria I could find none-other then the usual self serving industry bla and it's interpretation by the public at large.Of course they highlight benefits which aren't there. The same holds true for the terms "Short Sale" and "Hedge Fund". Your congress speaks about " manipulation ", but that is calling the bell "Quasimodo". Obviously they can not decide if it is a political or social issue. Or what else? Since the U.S.A is a legal-lego society model of the finest art this lack of clear definition of terms involving trillions of dollars is surprising and alarming.In particular in present "information age". Double jeopardy I say: Witholding investment information in the information age!A paternal joke originating on the terrain of the King Pin of Capitalism. In my opinion the reason for great discomfort to the average off line and on line investor alike, because this lack of proper definition furthers the agenda of all those market elements which fabricate or manipulate investment information. Ever wondered why thousands upon thousands of SEC rule violators falling into the category of short selling", "insider trading" and "Hedge Fund".are sentenced to write a thousand times " without admitting or denying any guilt" ? Those "paroling" actions by the SEC are fruitless as the individuals involved do "it" again and again And why not when nobody in the land can produce a legal document which clearly defines those words? Gaining "first hand" information on a positive or negative happening which will alter the portfolios bottom line is one issue.Manipulating first hand information is the second. Fabricating information is the third. Not disclosing of a material fact which may influence a investors ultimate decision to buy or not to buy a particular stock is the "one and only issue" I am interested in. Now that the short term money was made in GUMM by either side we must not go any further as we could utilize this very stock as illustrating model if you please. Since the end of my argument concerns the Losers my initial question to you is the following Can you agree with me that number X of investors, traders, speculators or gamblers having put their money on the line since the GUMM argument started on this thread and have lost out, so far. Would they have been better off in their ultimate buying decision if they could have been informed by the ticker in real time about each short sale transaction pertaining GUMM? Before they parted from their money? Regards, ED