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 : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rande Is who wrote (23060)	4/1/2000 12:01:00 AM
From: JD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Where is the voice of the individual investor in Washington? In Washington DC, the voice of an individual investor is overwhelmingly drowned out by the thousands of siren songs being sung by the security industry's lobbyists (you know how to recognize them - look for the wads of campaign donations clutched in their grubby little hands!). Another fine example of how our "democracy by bribery" works...can't you just see Jefferson flipping in his grave?

To: Rande Is who wrote (23060)	4/1/2000 6:33:00 AM
From: Knight	Respond to of 57584

Rande: I don't claim to be an expert in in the TokyoJoe matter or in the Securities Issues. But I have been aware of this type of scrutiny by the SEC because of my late husband owning an Insurance Agency for over 25 yrs. The SEC would love people to think they are on this witch hunt for the rights of the little guy. Give me a break. The real reason they are(IMHO) is because then the SEC can require companies that are not licensed brokerages or security companies to get Security Licenses, thus paying hefty fees. This too would apply for already Licensed Insurance Agents as well, thus paying the hefty fees. Companies pay in the millions over time to have these licenses. Imagine that you are the SEC and seeing all these unlicensed companies and individuals selling investments or giving investment advice and not paying fees you know they would pay if they could somehow be made to get a license.Whether this advice is through newsletters or given freely in a general sense or not. And that is where it hinges. I would first of all say no one is twisting anyone's arm to go to the internet and become involved in the stock market or any other site. It's the individuals free choice. Things said on these sites are, I believe, protected under the free speech amendment. Barring immoral, evil acts by despicable people. (I'm no lawyer). So the burden of proof is going to to lie exactly where Mr. Cotton says. I don't think they have an open and shut case.These things tend to drag on and on and unless he gave an individual private investment portfolio advice and was paid, I'm not convinced they can win. Just my unbiased, non-professional opinion.

To: Rande Is who wrote (23060)	4/1/2000 3:44:00 PM
From: ~digs	Respond to of 57584

Good points Rande... From your link: <<<The SEC's civil-fraud suit, filed last month in Chicago federal court, alleged that Tokyo Joe failed to disclose personal trading of stocks that he recommended. It also contended that he failed to disclose receiving free shares in exchange for touting a stock, and inflated his advertised investment performance on 800 occasions.>>> My opinion is that this Tokyo Joe case is mainly about deception. The fact that people pay for his picks simply compounds the issue. I too do not think we will see precedence in the manner of people having to get a license before conducting such a website. What I do think is possible is that we will have a ruling such that if you are going to earn money (through fees) by telling others what you are buying and selling... then you will have to 'register' and be accountable. By that I mean, someone like Tokyo Joe is going to have to open his books for his clients ongoing review. Consider the ramifications! Real Time official portfolio data for those whom are charging for their picks. A DISTANT possibility, but yet possible. That mutual fund that posts their buys and sells (delayed) is WAY ahead of the curve. (Under the circumstances I don't feel this is an invasion of privacy and Yes, the issue is very cloudy... I don't know how insighters.com would be classified... because I presume it will be more like a community than a 'leader-posts-his-picks, everybody-buy-it' type of deal.) I honestly think that someday... the talking heads at CNBC will also have to divulge positions. Arthur Levitt may have to die of old age first, but with enough noise coming from 'us,' it should eventually happen. This is America, and I'd like to think that the average citizen still has influence. Ventura's becoming governor is a good example of this... too bad the people have to be fed up beyond frustration before they can band together enough to break the norm and make change. [Also unfortunate that Jesse has to be so confrontational about EVERYTHING that the people of Minnesota (especially our representatives at the capital) are sick of listening to him (my perceptions only)... if we get a unicameral legislature out of his term, I'll be satisfied. So far St. Paul is argument central] As a law professional, I would be delighted to hear Bob Martin weigh in on this case against Park... Bob, you out there? For the record, I have never followed Tokyo Joe's picks... primarily because of his severely condescending demeanor towards newbies. Same goes for A@P. JMHO