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: Jon Tara who wrote (2082)	7/23/2003 11:49:13 AM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

No foul. Damages are damages. Doesn't matter whether you started with $10 million and lost it all that way or during the same time you made $10 million and then lost it. Now the defendants knew it was easy to prove I didn't start with $10 million. Where they've got some problems is explaining how I had one trade of $250,000, another of $115,000, one of $85,000 and dozens at $10-50,000 a pop. But all of those trades were trades held overnight on my own, or held all day, trades I chose myself. BUT, on the millions of scalp garbage kickback trades Rea called, I lost all of it back. Losses are losses, whether you lose your inheritance or you lose the work and profit of two years. I wasn't going to discuss this, but I decided there's no harm, because the defendants surely know it. I think the jury will see how quickly this adds up to $10 million, with $1/4 million, $115,000 there - all blown on kickback advice. Now you begin to see how someone could lose $10 million and it not sink in: it was being made and lost at virtually the same time. Furthermore, when we discuss damages from opportunities lost, what those are, the jury can look at some of the gigantic trades I did nail, on my own, wonder why Rea never called those, and then start thinking how much that might have been.

To: Jon Tara who wrote (2082)	7/23/2003 11:53:20 AM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

Let me give you an example. How about we take the defendants. If between 1998-2000 Philip Berber made a huge windfall of $500 million on stock trades he chose himself, but then lost it all due to fraudulent advice from another, would there be liability? You bet there would be. That $500 million was then his (assuming he made it legitimately) and it was lost due to fraud. That's still a net loss. I don't think the defendants would be very wise at all to start taking credit for the few trades I chose on my own that won big. They try to do that, they'll fall flat on their faces, because they never called hold any stock for longer than maybe 10 minutes max. There's the key in proving damages right there: hold-duration.