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 : Save The World Air Inc. (ZERO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grateful Reaper who wrote (199)	7/21/2000 10:06:33 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 445

Grateful Reaper, the SEC has rules to guard against misleading press releases. If you have to dissect a sentence and then compare it to others to figure out what it probably means (as opposed to what it implies if read "normally"), that's a red flag, IMO. Going one step further, this even applies to PR firms. For example, JMAX Communications of Tampa, Florida issued a PR saying that Chase Manhattan Bank had placed a "strong buy recommendation" on an OTC stock called Winchester Mining. Turns out a Chase employee did issue such a rating (much like it appears ZERO did talk to a Ford employee). Problem is, the employee worked in Chase's debt collection department, not with their securities operations. And, oh, by the way, the two had recently made their acquaintance in a bar. You can read the SEC litigation release at Message 14066738. If we use your methodology, we should compare the Ford PR with the one summarizing the New York Times article where ZERO edited out all the negative stuff and thus changed the entire meaning of it (i.e. that the Times essentially said ZERO was full of hot air). Put in that context, one could reasonably conclude that ZERO is purposefully wording their press releases to mislead investors. Since the SEC has halted trading in ZERO, and given past experience, I'd say the SEC agrees. - Jeff