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 (87798)	11/11/2004 9:35:24 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 122087

You probably meant, "Nietzsche", Gary. It's typical of your style. That SoreBone MyFirstAid w/ BandAids Class really paid off, eh?. "Those who forget history are condemned to relive it. Nietsche said it best: The Past is Prologue." Maybe you can go through that whole "mycusolabiawhatever" thing where you conjectured for about a week, about women peeing whilst standing up. That was really special. How's your dead dog? And this: "It IS illegal for a group to research in private and then act in concert as a pool or syndicate to achieve advantage over the public." is just bullshit. What do you think an local investment club does, as has been highlighted in the WSJ? The great thing we can count on, throughout all these years, is that your capacity affords many promising contrarian returns.

To: magicrecall who wrote (87798)	11/11/2004 9:43:13 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

It IS illegal for a group to research in private and then act in concert as a pool or syndicate to achieve advantage over the public. An utterly ridiculous assertion, of course, for that would make, to pick one now-historical example, the Iomegans who got together and deduced that the Zip drive was going be a big hit, and bounced the stock about 30x back in 1995 and 1996, all criminals. But of course what you actually intend, is to apply wildly differing standards of conduct for long investors and short sellers. Because you hate short sellers.

To: magicrecall who wrote (87798)	11/11/2004 10:32:46 AM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

RAYMOND DIRKS IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD ON WALL STREET. IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED ON THIS THREAD techstocks.com AND DIRKS STILL ON THE LOOSE AS THE NASDAQ CONTINUES TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY.....

To: magicrecall who wrote (87798)	11/11/2004 7:01:17 PM
From: Mark L.	Respond to of 122087

It IS illegal for a group to research in private and then act in concert as a pool or syndicate to achieve advantage over the public. As I have said before, read the history of the Equity Funding case. At the time, Dirks was a private contract special focus research analyst. He discovered a fraud in the financial statements of Equity Funding. In accordance with the contracts he had with his clients, he selectively disclosed this information to his exclusive clients. They took advantage of their early access to the information to sell their shares before the public could. Three months or so later, Equity Funding was in Bankruptcy. The SEC screamed foul...The SEC objected to anyone having a leg up on the general investing public, and demanded that such information be distributed to the public before any individual investor took advantage of their early access to the facts. Everything you wrote about Equity Funding is true. But you left out one itty-bitty point. The Supreme Court overruled the SEC in the Dirks case, telling them in attractive legalese that they had their head up their ass.

To: magicrecall who wrote (87798)	11/11/2004 7:11:09 PM
From: Nazbuster	Respond to of 122087

re: "It IS illegal for a group to research in private and then act in concert as a pool or syndicate to achieve advantage over the public" LOL! What the hell do you think we're all doing HERE? If we all research and discuss a stock then make a trade based upon the discoveries posted here, how is that different? It's just a different audience. In fact, Tony DID publish all his opinions and research on SI before the trades became too crowded and he went private. In any case, all the information we obtained was from common, public sources. The only ambiguous point in my mind is that if an FBI agent violates his own internal rules and informs someone of a fact, and that party verifies it independently from public sources then acts upon it, is that trading on "inside" information?