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: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1956)	7/22/2003 6:43:40 PM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 3143

The odds of winning are better in Las Vegas. A slot machine, by law, has to return something like 96% to the public. Second, NASD is not supposed to be run like a casino, but if it truly is nothing more than a casino, It isn't a casino if you are an investor only because if you are an investor you run the chance that your assets will grow along with the underlying value of the business you own stock in. Trading is a minority game, the majority loses while a small minority wins and they simply trade dollars with each other, they add nothing to the total money flow into the market and benefit little from changes in value of the underlying but attempt to benefit from changes in price, which cannot be predicted with any accuracy. Also,the fact that people win large requires that much larger numbers of people lose (typical pyramid schemes work the same way). All traders, in aggregate, provide is liquidity while the underlying money flow is all investment money. The fact that these traders lost on an overall rising market is testament that what I say is correct, that it is trading which causes the losses.

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1956)	7/22/2003 7:09:11 PM
From: Yogizuna	Respond to of 3143

>>> What I have posted here is the very smallest tip of the iceberg. It is a massive scandal. Thousands of lives destroyed when if the advisers and brokers had been honest they would have been rewarded for their endeavors and the risks they took. But, while the markets were on fire, great trades all over, they conspired to step on everyone's efforts except their own. That will take some explaining. This is not a suit of people wiped out after the markets started crashing. We're talking about legions of people suffering catastrophic financial loss when the markets were still rocketing. How to explain? They'll have some problems. <<< How to explain? A few words will do: "Greed & Arrogance"

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1956)	7/22/2003 8:02:52 PM
From: Jon Tara	Respond to of 3143

"In fact, during the timeframe here, 1998-2000, investing was far more dangerous than trading during the day only" What a load of nonsense. Sure, if you put all your money in one stock. I'd wager that most longer-term investors with a diversified portfolio of tech stocks did MUCH better during this period than most day-traders. And I was a day-trader. I managed a 600% return during that period. But, frankly, I could have done better and with a lot less effort, simply buying and holding a portfolio of the same stocks I was trading. It's all there in the charts, in retrospect.

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (1956)	7/23/2003 1:13:10 AM
From: Dave O.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

< I lasted longer than six months before being wiped out. That's something the defendants are going to have to explain, since most of their clients were wiped out within 6-8 weeks then. > LOL. Are you serious with the above statement? Do you actually THINK before you post? If you lost $10 million, as I believe you've asserted I can say with 99.9% confidence that your account was larger than probably 99.9% of all day traders back then. Why on earth would the defendants have to explain why you lasted longer than 6-8 weeks? Do you think that maybe .... just maybe the size of the account has anything to do with it?