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 (110325)	9/19/2000 3:24:08 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV, re: John, you really must have misinterpreted the Full Disclosure rule and Levitt's intent. No, I understand rule FD, in fact spent some time lobbying for it's passage. I was using it's passage as an example, that the SEC is not powerless in the face of powerful interests, as jmac and McMannis implied. Reread my post and the one I was responding to. John

To: GVTucker who wrote (110325)	9/19/2000 3:28:36 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, you really must have misinterpreted the Full Disclosure rule and Levitt's intent. I don't think this was the import of John's example regarding Chairman Leavitt, I believe he was using it as a metaphor to demonstrate Leavitt's resistance to entrenched undue influence and political power. Bank of America is under absolutely no obligation at all to disclose anything to anybody other than their clients, and even then they can disclose some information to some clients and withhold that information from others. Are you sure, I don't think John was talking about the duty to disclose, I think that once information IS disclosed then 17B comes into play and the duty to disclose hidden motives, if any.