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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (117254)	8/17/2001 12:55:58 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 436258

Hi Lee, Sheesh, you amaze me. You actually followed up on what I posted. That is rare at SI, where most are just pontificating, grandstanding or posing. You will not get to the bottom of the "101" rulings via anything you'll find on the web. This arcana is a matter that is real inner sanctum stuff and I can't think of anyone at SI to refer you to on this matter. The PWC piece was obviously written as a teaser so you, in your corporate treasurer role, would think about calling the "names" at the bottom of the sheet and let these priests give you their "interpretations of regulations". These IORs are becoming rampant in a lot of sectors of admin law, so just get used to it. And believe that there is wiggle room and plenty of grease that can make black look white. But you knew that. Don't fret 101, look at it with the jaundiced eye of those who will try to spin and prestidigitate in any way possible to give Mr. Market what he wants (and deserves). After the SEC's marvelous complicity in JDSU's world record re-write of history, I'm of the opinion that anything goes. Especially the net worth of the unwary. Cheerio!