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: Bill Wexler who wrote (89736)	1/25/2005 3:07:59 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

He could have made a ton of money and kept it for his family, instead of letting the RICO statue clean them out. He has probably impoverished his wife and children for many years, all for nothing. There is a strong streak of "I can do what I like, lie about it and get away with it" in Tony's persona, from the little I have seen (never met the guy in person). Some people have a constant need to prove something - for Tony, it was breaking the rules and getting away with it. It wouldn't surprise me if, deep down, he mostly craved acceptance from the same Establishment that wouldn't put up with his antics. So he had to keep thumbing his nose at them. His judgment about how far he could go and get away with it was faulty, to say the least.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (89736)	1/25/2005 3:48:18 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Bill, There may have been some method to his thought. I'm thinking of May 99's HITT. When (CEO) Dorian Reed's FTC problems came to light in the Bloomberg article of May 1999, HITT took a huge whack. It was a $800 million market cap trading around $20 at the time. HITT dropped 50% one day, and continued a rapid decline afterwards. Dorian's FTC convictions were difficult to find at that time, though. And the SEC was never involved until much later, when the stock was ... I think maybe 2 bux. So, exposing the CEO isn't always fruitless. In the case of HITT, it made a big chunk of change. But I do agree with you more frequently it is not that way. He met Royer later on in 1999. Perhaps his thinking was along the lines of "Maybe every POS could be a HITT". So, continue that with a new contact (Royer) who might have access to difficult to find info and ... >> "Exposing their CEOs as criminals would do little, if anything to move the stock price."

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (89736)	1/25/2005 8:06:03 AM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

very good points, i agree 100%. looking back at the evidence and knowing a little about how ap's mind worked, the reason strictly imo tony started going after these bad trades ie the thin traded obvious frauds but stocks you obviously shouldn't short based on volume... he was trying to produce a "supply" of trade ideas when the market got slow, and he was doing it any way he could. when the market slowed it was harder to make good trades and there were fewer trade ideas.... so i'm guessing most of his income came from website fees. thus, his focus was keeping the business running and in true elgindy fashion, he broke the rules to make himself money. What really strikes me as ironic about this situation is that - ultimately - the information that Tony received from the FBI agent was - IMO - of little or no value. Tony was shooting against thinly traded stocks which were prima facie frauds and promotion schemes. Exposing their CEOs as criminals would do little, if anything to move the stock price. It's too bad. I don't understand why he felt compelled to take sleazy shortcuts and resort to being a con artist. Truth be told, he could have probably ended up making a ton of money in this business if he played by the rules.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (89736)	1/25/2005 5:38:38 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

What really strikes me as ironic about this situation is that - ultimately - the information that Tony received from the FBI agent was - IMO - of little or no value. I don't understand that either. One thing frequently mentioned in the trial was that Royer gave Tony bad information about Paul Brown. Royer said he was a convicted felon, but he wasn't. Tony could easily have checked that at Pacer or BOP. Why didn't he?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (89736)	1/26/2005 1:56:59 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 122087

ultimately - the information that Tony received from the FBI agent was - IMO - of little or no value. That's like asking why sports stars take performance enhancing drugs. They want that extra edge that keeps them on top. Tony had a reputation and a big following. To stay on top he probably not only felt obligated to produce winners, but lots of them. The FBI databases not only confirmed his suspicions but likely gave him new targets as well. Once you are able to rationalize you are doing a public service by exposing scams -- that the ends justify the means -- you've ventured down a slippery slope. We've just witnesses how far down you can fall, which is more than I ever thought possible. - Jeff