SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill Harmond who wrote (132936)10/15/2001 9:23:01 PM
From: H James Morris  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164687
 
>You're a genius, HJ! Tell us what else you did weeks ago!
I fu$ked an elephant with a great memory. It sure beats 'sheep' as you should know.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (132936)10/15/2001 10:17:21 PM
From: H James Morris  Respond to of 164687
 
Be careful Bill. Sooner or later the SEC is out to get you.
>Rosalind Tyson, the attorney tapped as acting head of the Security and Exchange Commission's Pacific Regional Office, has spent her 19-year SEC career bringing financial fraudsters to heel.

During that time, a lot has changed at the commission. The chief improvement, Tyson says, has been an aggressive enforcement policy that gives SEC investigators a better chance of catching the bad guys before they scoot with their ill-gotten loot.

But the swindles that ensnare most investors remain depressingly familiar.

"You know, I'm not seeing any new scams," Tyson said. "They are the same old recycled ones."

Back in 1982, when Tyson joined the SEC four years out of Stanford Law School, the commission often found itself intervening long after investors had been hoodwinked and the bad guys had retired to the Cayman Islands.

Six ways to lose on investment fraud

Here are six of the most common investment frauds and how you could fall prey to them:
• Microcap fraud. Put your money in stock of tiny new companies, based on hot tips from callers in high-pressure "boiler rooms."

• Prime-bank fraud. Invest in a "prime bank" that allegedly makes huge profits overseas.

• Promissory-note fraud. Make a loan in exchange for an IOU from a fraudulent company or from people who fraudulently claim to represent a legitimate company.

• Affinity fraud. Unwittingly buy into a pyramid scheme by following investment advice from someone in a social or religious group you belong to, without checking its merits for yourself.

• Spam fraud. Fall for unsolicited e-mails that promise quick profits if you act immediately on a "risk-free" and "guaranteed" investment.

• Telemarketing fraud. Invest in a scheme proposed in a call from a telemarketer — and give that unknown person the numbers of your credit card and bank account. A National Consumers League survey found that 92 percent of adults said they had received fraudulent investment calls.

For more information, visit the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov. For SEC pamphlets about fraud, call 800-SEC-0330.
Today, Tyson and others say, the SEC is able to intervene more quickly to shut down frauds, like boiler rooms or bucket shops pushing bogus stocks, by using temporary restraining orders and freezing assets.

"They have a pretty good reputation," said Dan Jamieson, editor in chief of Registered Representative, an Irvine, Calif.-based magazine that covers the brokerage business. "I don't know how you quantify how proactive they've been, but I think the bucket-shop problems are finally starting to be cleared up."

On the West Coast, the stepped-up enforcement is, in part, simply a function of the expansion of the Los Angeles office, which oversees SEC activities in nine Western states.

Today, the office has three times as many employees as it did in the early 1980s. Tyson says most are enforcement lawyers, the foot soldiers in the SEC's fight against fraud.


The commission has also streamlined its regulation of the investment-adviser industry in recent years.

"Reporting and registration have become automated, which has freed the bureau up to spend more time following through on other investigations," says Tom Lydon of Global Trends Investments in Newport Beach, Calif.

The changes at the SEC also reflect the activist leadership of former SEC chief Arthur Levitt, who stepped down in February after an eight-year term marked by high-profile crackdowns on Nasdaq price-fixing, Internet fraud, and conflicts of interest among analysts and accountants.

Tyson says she expects the aggressive policy to continue under incoming SEC head Harvey Pitt, who is expected to name a permanent head of the SEC's Los Angeles office.

Challenges remain at the commission. Jamieson says the SEC continues to suffer from high turnover because it pays its attorneys far less than they could get working on Wall Street.

"That's a key thing they need to do to make it better," Jamieson says. "They have a lot of these young attorneys who are very smart people, but they don't stick around that long."

The law the SEC enforces is, at its heart, pretty simple: It requires any company or individual selling stock to investors to be honest about the risks involved.

As a result, most of the frauds targeting individual investors are ridiculously easy to spot and avoid. That's because they promise high returns with low or no risk and require immediate action — red flags rarely associated with legitimate offerings.

Even so, the scam artists continue to thrive, Tyson says, because investors continue to fall for their fraudulent patter. What gets Tyson's goat after 19 years of shutting down boiler rooms and brokers gone bad? Not the craftiness of the criminals.

"It's where investors don't ask questions because they think they're being let in on a special deal," she said.

"Never be rushed into making an investment. Take notes, ask a lot of questions, think about it. If the broker seems to be telling you that this investment is going to disappear if you don't act fast, ask yourself, 'Why are they giving you the opportunity if it's so special?' "

FACTS

Avoiding stock fraud
Rosalind Tyson, acting director of the Security and Exchange Commission's regional office, has these tips for investors on how to avoid stock fraud:

• Consult with a broker or adviser before making any investment.

• Check the background of a broker or financial adviser before you invest. A good place to check out brokers is at www.nasdr.com. This fall, the SEC will offer a similar screening tool for financial advisers on its Web site.

• Make sure your broker knows your risk tolerance, tax status, investing time frame and retirement needs before you invest.

• Know how your adviser or broker is being compensated.

• Realize that investments are for the long term. "The mentality of the late 1990s, where some segments of the market got into the psychology that you could make money overnight, is not the environment we're in now," Tyson said. "(The bubble of the late 1990s) made what the fraudsters were saying sound almost reasonable. It was harder to distinguish risky legitimate stocks from scams."

• Finally, if you have a complaint, write a letter and mail it. A letter "is the very best kind of evidence for you, and your case is more likely to be resolved," Tyson said.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (132936)10/16/2001 10:01:46 AM
From: H James Morris  Respond to of 164687
 
>Tell us what else you did weeks ago!
I'll tell you this Bill. I haven't been buying what you've been buying, at your bargain prices.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (132936)10/17/2001 5:50:13 PM
From: craig crawford  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164687
 
"When Does Global Good Outweigh Our Own Sovereignty?" USA Today, (December 8, 1999), page 31A.
gwu.edu
globalpolicy.org

One theme united many of the divergent groups that participated in the "Battle in Seattle" last week: As they saw it, the United States was, again, sacrificing its sovereignty to satisfy yet another international organization. And President Clinton confirmed their worst suspicions when he stated that he was looking forward to the day when the World Trade Organization (WTO) would be able to impose sanctions on nations.

No wonder the demonstrators, and millions of others, fear that we are losing our independence and being sucked into ever more "multilateral" arrangements, instead of either retreating into fortress America or striking out unilaterally.

The WTO is but one of a rising number of international organizations that are stripping away our sovereignty. But should we fight them or embrace them as the forerunners of a new world order?

This is one of the most challenging choices we face in the coming age.

When I check my thesaurus to find synonyms for sovereignty, the terms "king," "lord," "dominant" and "absolute" pop up. No wonder we are so reluctant to allow inroads into our right to self-government. Who wants to be lorded over by others, let alone dominated by foreigners? After all, the ability to control our fate is the reason we formed these United States in the first place. Yet, we are increasingly driven to recognize that we are entering an age in which our much-cherished sovereignty may have to be curtailed to serve global economic and humanitarian goals.

In global markets, billions of dollars slosh daily across national borders. This maelstrom of hot money forces us to act (for instance, we cut interest rates in 1998) when markets go awry in such faraway places as Russia, Indonesia or Thailand, whether it suits us or not. There used to be a saying: "If the American economy sneezes, other countries catch a cold." But we slowly have ceased to be the self-sufficient giant who can inflict harm on others while ignoring their malaise.

Competing in global markets led us to join NAFTA. The treaty allows a foreign corporation to haul an American one before a NAFTA tribunal. That tribunal's decisions are binding.

This loss of sovereignty has been protested from the right by Pat Buchanan -- who sees "a betrayal of our history and our heritage of liberty" -- and from the left by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. -- who viewed the NAFTA tribunals as an "assault on democracy," because they are not accountable to our electorate. Yet, the economic benefits from freer trade have led us to learn to live with these supranational decisions.

Humanitarian concerns are pushing us in the same direction. NATO recently arrested several people charged with war crimes in Bosnia. Nearly 100 people have been indicted or jailed in The Hague by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Thus, we are witnessing an army of one country arresting the citizens of another, in their homeland, and kidnapping them to stand trial in a third country, presided over by judges from still other countries.

Indeed, while the U.S. supported this measure of internationalization of justice, it vehemently opposes the next step, the establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC). This court would have much greater power and, therefore, would present a much larger threat to sovereignty. We fear that our soldiers might be hauled in front of the ICC for some action overseas, such as bombing civilians. But note, the debate is about how much sovereignty to yield to these new courts, rather than whether it would serve international justice to fight them off entirely.

When we joined the drive to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, we interfered in Serbia's internal affairs. Kosovo is recognized by the international community as an integral part of Serbia. We thus have set a strong precedent that we support interference in other nations if we judge that they are acting in an inhumane manner. There are several such countries, although perhaps as they realize from the get-go that they will face our wrath, there may be fewer Rwandas, Sudans and Bosnias.

Even more troubling to those who cling to yesterday's concept of sovereignty is the loss of our ability to act unilaterally when we participate in peacekeeping efforts, under NATO and especially under the United Nations. In Kosovo for part of the war, we could not drop a bomb until 18 other nations agreed. In East Timor, we (and Australia) did not move until the United Nations sanctioned the action.

Critics argued that we should not have been involved in either conflict, or we should have acted unilaterally. But we have learned that by acting in unison with other nations, we avoid being perceived as a global bully. Still, putting our armed forces, even in a limited and temporary way, under a supranational command is a significant step toward a new world order, indeed one that may require amending our Constitution.

There is little doubt that during the coming decades the world will continue to grow more interdependent in every conceivable manner, from environmental concerns to interlocking mafias. Unless we support various forms of pooling governmental powers, we will be unable to cope with these swelling global challenges. One need not be a bleary-eyed visionary, dreaming of a world government and a seamless global community, to recognize we require a new world order.

These losses of independence may seem less threatening if we cease thinking about sovereignty like pregnancy -- you either are or you aren't. Giving up slices of sovereignty does not entail sacrificing our ability to govern ourselves, let alone becoming a U.N.-occupied territory. Thus, the fact that we are a partner of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund does not require closing down our Federal Reserve System.

And while NAFTA's (and others') tribunals may chastise, that's fine; or one day they may even shut down one of our corporations, then all of the others will continue to do business as usual. Moreover, if serious injustice is inflicted on us, we can walk away from various new supranational commitments.

All of this does not mean that we should embrace sacrificing our sovereignty as some kind of novel international fad. Each step must be carefully examined and conditions set. However, we had best recognize that there is no way to stop globalism.

Building stronger worldwide authorities to curb its ill side effects may be one of the most critical steps for the next century.