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

To: Patricia who wrote (1356)	7/2/2003 7:29:50 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3143

Pat, I would say that traders who went into actual offices are different altogether, as often they were not trading their own money, they were trading the firm's money. That is a completely different ball-game right there. Some people cannot grasp these claims, do not want to or have an agenda. No matter. It will be fairly easy to demonstrate graphically in Court to a jury, exactly how this all worked. One tough question yet again which no one who questions these claims has yet answered: if this were all my own doing, not the recommendations of Trading Places and the absolute and deliberate corruption thereof by the brokerage defendants, if it was all my fault, I was just a dam' fool speculator, then why did Trading Places hire me as an analyst? Would they hire a poor trader, trust one to make recommendations? No WAY. They knew I was a top trader because I did not get wiped out in a few weeks, I lasted in spite of it all for two years. And that is not because I started out with $50 million. Far from it. But my trade records will bear out the $10 million in losses on churn recommendations quite easily. So you blame someone, call them a terrible trader, that's why he got creamed, but on the other hand you hire that person as a top analyst? LOL. I cannot wait to have Rea/Berber et al answer that one in Court. OOPS. "Poor" Chris Rea, he must have caught it from his cronies that he ever hired me. Quelle debacle!

To: Patricia who wrote (1356)	7/2/2003 7:46:42 PM
From: Dave O.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

< It is simple enough for me to understand, and wonder why it is so hard for you to understand. > Not hard for me to understand at all. I DO understand. Perhaps you've not read all my posts on this thread. I traded in an office where we paid for services, to the likes of Pristine, Jag Notes, etc. Do you think that just because we paid some money we followed the picks? < Tokyo Joes group, Market Gems group, or some of the others mentioned here > The above statement says it all. Do you consider the above to be respected professional stock pickers with established histories at the time you (or others) subscribed to them? Why wouldn't people who might lack considerable investing/trading experience subscribe to names that someone like Mark Hulbert might mention in his newsletters? And why not heed the advice he gives about how gullible people are when it comes to investing. Maybe if you read the article below and check out his rankings of longer term newsletters you'll better understand. Nowhere in his rankings do I see Market Gems or Tokyo Joe ... then again I didn't expect to. fundadvice.com Why not subscribe to someone who shows they have a good long term track record? For example, Louis Navellier, who publishes the MPT Review (based on Modern Portfolio Theory if you're not familiar with MPT). fundadvice.com If I decided to seek out someone for services, whether it be financial, legal or anything else I'd certainly check out their credentials, years of experience, etc. To not do so would be foolish.