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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (110298)	9/19/2000 2:47:35 PM
From: jmac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I did not follow anyone's advice. I can't be a plaintiff because I do'nt qualify. But an awful lot of people took the advise. Just witness the downdraft and the updraft. This kine of crap has to stop. Wittington was just too obvious Even the clowns on CNBC saw what was going on (even though they didn't exactly say so).

To: GVTucker who wrote (110298)	9/19/2000 2:51:25 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 186894

A complaint to the SEC won't do anything. B of A is bigger than the SEC. The sec has been trying since 1994 to get bank tellers in banks, who sell securities to get a Series 7 to no avail. The theory of the case is the Fraud on the Market theory. No direct relationship with the Bank would need be alledged. There would be two obvious areas to explore: Did the securities end of the Bank, "Bof A Securities" or any of its related entities either buy in or dump at the wrong times; and, Did the Bank's investment bank division have an offering coming out simultaneously or other investment relationship that needed the proceeds from the sale of Intel Stock from the Trust Funds that the Bank manages. The above are musings and would be subject to intense review to be considered as fact or law.