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 : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (8185)	8/28/2001 3:36:40 PM
From: bwdik	Respond to of 19428

EYPSF took a starting chunk today added a few more i smell dirty bastids

To: Wayners who wrote (8185)	8/28/2001 7:29:11 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

Hi Wayne, This clause... is going to $6 in 90 days ...invites two forms of regulatory scrutiny. First, the phrase "is going" is almost certainly too promissory. It's one thing to say, "we predict/estimate/believe that this stock will/may reach $X in the next 6/12/18 months," and yet another to say, "this stock will hit $X within the next [time period]." The term baseless would also probably arise. There has to be a "reasonable basis" for price predictions. With the internet and biotech stocks, predictions for a $250 stock to hit $400, when the stock IPO'ed at $12, were not deemed "baseless" as the issues had already registered huge, outsized price appreciation. But for a $.10/sh, $.25/sh or even $1.00/sh issue, setting a price target of, say $5.00/sh when the stock has been lingering at drill bit prices for years and trades an avg. of 1,000 sh/day would - on top of the promissory language - almost certainly be out of compliance with regulatory advertising, marketing, and sales practice guidelines. LP.