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: Dave O. who wrote (90381)	1/28/2005 11:56:53 AM
From: olivier asser	Respond to of 122087

Those disclaimers did not help TokyoJoe now did they? The same argument was tossed by an Illinois federal court. Rea during the chat constantly stated what fools TP traders were if they did not execute on each and every trade. He contradicted the "Consider" at every turn. When I posted yesterday about counsel engaged in the Enterprise, these kinds of planned escape hatches is what I meant, attempted cover for RICO activities. Do you understand what the word "consider" means?

To: Dave O. who wrote (90381)	1/28/2005 1:08:37 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

IF TP intended members to use their own judgment in exiting a call then why would TP make this recommendation? 09:42:04 [Merlin] <w>URGENT: All Traders Consider Take Some Profits: ISLD 09:42:05 [Merlin] <w>URGENT: All Traders Consider Take Some Profits: ISLD 09:42:06 [Merlin] <w>URGENT: All Traders Consider Take Some Profits: ISLD TP made both entry and exit calls, hundreds every day. That's why TP was paid $500 a month by hundreds of members, for the TP calls, which on the subscription page TP claimed were "94% accurate" and made by "NASDAQ market specialists" with "60 years of experience." Why don't you explain why anyone would pay $500/month to an investment adviser in order to ignore the calls? Your argument makes no sense, and remember the TokyoJoe court explicitly rejected it, an important precedent, holding that a site like TJ's is under the law to be regarded as an investment adviser. (Relevant text follows in the next post.) For people who who are inexperienced, unable or unwilling to find their own trades, the above is good advice Ollie. In fact it's good advice for experienced traders as well. Stop losses are a way for people to exit trades before they get decimated.

To: Dave O. who wrote (90381)	1/28/2005 1:12:24 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Site Defined as Investment Adviser by a Federal Court: The TokyoJoe Precedent The Court notes initially that Defendants meet the basic definition of an “investment adviser” in that over the Internet they “for compensation, engage in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as part of a regular business, issue or promulgate analyses or reports concerning securities.” 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11); cf. Lowe, 472 U.S. at 203-04, 105 S. Ct. 2569. Thus, Defendants must fall within an exclusion in order to not be considered an “investment adviser.” Moreover, in order to avail themselves of the publishers exception, Defendants' publications over the Internet web site must be both “bona fide” and have a “general and regular” circulation. See id. at 206, 105 S. Ct. at 2571. The SEC has alleged that Defendants' publications are neither. …a "bona fide" publication is one that is genuine in that it would contain disinterested commentary and analysis and not be promotional material disseminated by a "tout." …The SEC has alleged that Defendants' publications were not disinterested. On the web site, Defendants persuaded subscribers to purchase, sell, or hold specific stocks using several methods, including posting effusive testimonials and misleading performance results, urging subscribers to hold stocks until they reached certain target numbers, and falsely stating Societe Anonyme's intentions to purchase certain stocks. Further, the SEC maintains that in certain instances, Defendants were acting as "touts," by promoting stocks in which they either had an interest or for which they were being paid to recommend without revealing their interests. - United States SEC v. Gun Soo Oh Park a/k/a Tokyo Joe and Tokyo Joe’s Societe Anonyme Corp., 99 F. Supp. 2d 889, 895-896 (D. Ill., 2000)