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 : AremisSoft Corporation (AREM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (493)	7/2/2001 2:07:11 PM
From: Ben Wa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 683

You are quite good at twisting words. If, for example, every time an investor bought a stock at $25 and it went to $10, that person demanded an SEC investigation because his brokerage firm had it rated a buy, or maybe they missed the eps estimate, you would have the cost of being a public company dramatically increased. Cost of capital goes up, cost of money available for entrepreneurs goes up, and those who currently have the bucks get to rule the world since innovation is stifled. The SEC is not the FDA who have the ability to rule something you ingest as safe.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (493)	7/2/2001 2:27:06 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 683

At any rate, never underestimate the chutzpah of a company committing fraud. I once did some programs in South Africa with a prominent US attorney who had argued some important cases before the Supreme Court. He was lecturing on due process and equal protection and spent some time talking about the problems police have with profiling drug smugglers coming off planes. At various times, you fit the profile if: --You had no luggage --You had lots of luggage --You were dressed poorly --You had fancy clothes --Lots of jewelry on a woman --No jewelry --etc. Never underestimate an individual's willingness to see what they want before a picture has enough details and facts to be clear. Given the right assumptions, you can paint almost any company with almost any brush you like.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (493)	7/2/2001 2:57:08 PM
From: Bob Rudd	Respond to of 683

<<Except that it's the contention of the longs here that "scrutiny" is not allowed to enter into the picture, that the SEC's job is to just do a routine disclosure check and otherwise rubber-stamp the thing through.>>As I read it, the contention is that the SEC doesn't have a specific 'business reason' requirement, but an unusual move like this will almost certainly raise the visibility and attention lever of the filer...That's what I referred to when I said scrutiny. Sorry if term was ambiguous.