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.
Pastimes : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1325)7/1/2003 7:06:29 PM
From: Dave O.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3143
 
< we paid up to $500/month for advice, it was not free as was Wall Street's advice. That makes quite a difference, don't you think? >

Sure there's a difference. But ... there is no guarantee that stock picks, whether paid for or not, are going to produce a positive outcome. If one enters a trade late they may lose, quite simple. Last, if one lost money in 1998 and 1999 I think they should have stepped back and asked "why". And again, I reiterate that many "wanna be" traders are not cut out to trade. Lots of typical "deer in headlights" people who froze and couldn't pull the trigger to exit losing trades. And you were a "speculator" in my opinion. Anyone buying and selling intra-day is speculating on the short term price movement of a security. And although I believe you're asserting you acted up the advice of an investment advisory firm in your trades I'd be very surprised if they guaranteed their picks would always be profitable. In the end it's not the advisor who makes the trade but the individual who may be a subscriber to their services.

I'll give you an A+ for determination and perseverance. But, as I said earlier, (and I know you won't address it) logically it makes no sense (to me) that 2 legal firms would ask to be taken off a case if they felt they would prevail in court and had been hired on a contingency basis.