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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: willcousa who wrote (47493)	5/31/2001 8:52:33 PM
From: Robert O	Respond to of 70976

OT I had read at the time that the ladies were counting their club's 'dues' as part of their return. I assume that's what you meant by contributions not a return of their capital (e.g. I invest 10k in INTC and sell 1/2 the position a day later and call it a 5k profit lol). In any event I found this article... from Enquirer.com no less! enquirer.com Wednesday, March 18, 1998 Beardstown Ladies admit error -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BY MARTHA IRVINE The Associated Press CHICAGO - The Beardstown Ladies, a group of grandmotherly investors who claimed Wall Street prowess in two best-selling books, admitted Tuesday their skill wasn't as stunning as advertised. They didn't even keep pace with the broad stock market. The women recalculated their gains after Chicago magazine last month questioned the accuracy of their claims. Betty Sinnock, longtime treasurer of the Beardstown Business and Professional Women's Investment Club, attributed the mistake to a computer input error - probably her own. The women did not, however, add their club dues to the returns, as they originally suspected, she said. Also appears the women continued to use higher return % on book flap AFTER they were 'outed' so that issue has gone to courts. Here's another snippet: In a ruling handed down this week, a California appellate court said book-jacket blurbs, like those found on the Beardstown investing guides, that make verifiably false claims are not entitled to First Amendment protections under state law. Ruling against Walt Disney Co.'s books division, Hyperion Publishing, the court said promotional statements on a flap jacket are commercial speech, and therefore must meet different standards than the book's content. Some First Amendment attorneys called the ruling absurd, saying that a distinction cannot be made between a book's content and its cover, which they said merely reflects what is inside its pages. California's First Appellate District said promotional statements on the covers are commercial speech, and therefore must satisfy a different standard. "When false or misleading," such statements are "entitled to no First Amendment protection at all and may be entirely prohibited," the court ruled Wednesday. Here's link to that whole article: chicagotribune.com RO For mine own part, seems that if this 'club' never thought to even take a second glance at a calculation that was returning an annualized 23% over nigh ANY time period, then the term investment club is inapplicable. How about naive to the point of hucksterism... and I mean that in the most pejorative sense possible. Sweet old grandmas? Walt Disney's book division snowed white? Walt would be rolling in his (alleged) cyrogenic chamber. Say it ain't so Goofy, say it ain't so!