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 : Meet Gene, a NASDAQ Market Maker -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (1286)	1/7/2001 9:54:09 AM
From: hobo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1426

i stumbled on this thread this AM and I do have a question. it is NOT a loaded question. just a real question given the amazement i have at people who "invest" in bb issues. personally, i would never even look at these issues, let alone "invest" (the real term is speculate), or trade them from the point of view that the risk/reward relationship is simply out of proportion. so... with that said. the question is: why does the SEC even allows these issues to exist? given that: 1. there are hardly any reporting requirements 2. the history of most of these companies is dismal in terms of the number of successes against the number of failures, indeed the amount of fraudulent operations. it is rather... "disengeniuos" for the SEC to allow these things to exist, and then claim that "they do not have the manpower to police the bb market participants and their less than honest practices" if i were a market maker, i would be very careful to "make a market" in these things, and if i were to do so, i would make damned sure i would make money, given the risk. as an "investor/speculator, i think i would be expected to be institutionalized if .... after fully aware of the inherent risks of participating in these things and i were to lose, i would then start "crying foul". equivalent to bring in a Miura bull into a crystal shop and then waving a matador's cape inside it... then cry about the broken crystal. anyone could explain the logic behind the SEC ? not only in the original decision to allow it, but further, in continuing to do so ? is it a way to employ excess attorney production ? or ? thanks in advance.