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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: magicrecall who wrote (87784)	11/11/2004 12:56:28 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

"Defenseless companies"??? Is that what you call scams run by crooks?

To: magicrecall who wrote (87784)	11/11/2004 12:57:32 AM
From: Nazbuster	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 122087

re: "It will be more tragic if Elgindy is acquitted. If that happens, we all lose" Would it be tragic if he were acquitted because the charges are proved false? It's clear you can't imagine that scenario as being in the realm of possibilities. I can understand your position on naked shorting that drives "defenseless companies" (ha!) out of business. That usually happens when greedy corporate officers, in a last ditch effort to save their fat asses, issue a toxic convertible that simply encourages massive shorting by the investor. I've also heard of short raids that target companies with weak defenses and agree with you that strategies like that should be banned. You're kidding yourself, however, if you think the share volume of shorts generated by Elgindy and his group would be sufficient to put a firm out of business or even seriously alter the stock price. Keep in mind that stocks that became short prospects were ALREADY running with volume and high price. So let's get specific here... Which companies are we talking about? SEVU? NSOL? Any others? SEVU was pumping out false PRs. They were counting as SALES unsolicited units sent to retailers as consignment stock with full guarantee of return. NSOL was (and still is) promoting technologies that have never been funded or implemented. The discovery that the ceo had an undisclosed felony seems to be at the center of this trial for Elgindy, yet that information was readily viewable online. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if information provided from a private source but which is also public information is to be considered "inside" information. I'm sure that will get resolved at the trial. The government wants to claim that a group that researches in private to take a position in stocks then publicizes their information afterward is somehow acting illegally. Isn't that how all the big firms operate? What's the difference when people post their opinions and research on SI? There it's NOT an attempt to influence the price of the stock? If we've reached the point where people cannot join forces to do research without it becoming a crime, we're all in trouble.

To: magicrecall who wrote (87784)	11/11/2004 8:54:41 AM
From: scion	Respond to of 122087

SO...what's the name of the undercover SEC agent? "The SEC (and the FBI) both use confidential informants, period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Anyone with an IQ over 40 can name a number of these CI's off the top of their heads." "Cleveland denied that he made up the undercover SEC agent and repeated to jurors that he got that information from Royer, even as Berke pointed out to him that an FBI agent would surely know that the SEC didn't use undercover agents."