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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Casavant Mining Kimberlite International (CMKM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: star.the.wonder.pup who wrote (1632)	2/10/2006 10:46:35 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2595

1) I'm for most of what you listed with some exceptions that I will list. In some cases, you don't go far enough. 2) I don't believe I have delusions - Why does a pup who has to wonder need to personally attack with a comment such as that? Are you an apologist for hedge funds and/or MM's? Is there a "wormhole" through which we need to travel to get us to the truth? Now - if you really want to have a discussion and not just have your posterior bitten by a superior pooch, let's get on with it. If you follow my posts, I am for anything that will eliminate or even reduce the manipulation in our markets, anything that will make it fairer for retail investors, anything that helps legitimate companies in their capital formation in a fair and equitable fashion. I am against dilution and dumping whether it be by insiders and touts or hedge funds and their associates, or vulture funders and those trading with them or on information used as part of a manipulative scheme to screw retail investors. The role of MM's has to be changed such that they are really making markets and not just lining their pockets. 3) Now - as to your specific list. I assume you are talking about OTC BB stocks. There is a new rule that any company that is late (I believe it is 2 times w/i a calendar period) will be knocked off OTC BB. I think that is a good step. I do believe there is a role for pinksheets.com and welcome their move to make it tougher to list with them and their recent move to have a listing of companies according to how much they file. They are supposedly going to have a series of listings depending on how much they disclose and how, e.g., audited vs. unaudited, etc. I also believe that struggling and beginning companies need to be able to trade even if they can't afford perhaps the million bucks to do SOX. (Changes in SOX for small companies is a whole other issue and we have to be able to not throw out the baby with the bath wash and kill all small companies.)So I do think that unaudited statements and the basics under 211 should be a minimum. If those are not met, I don't think they should be trading. I'm not sure you can fully enforce this as they can go elsewhere but it makes it tougher to get new US suckers if they are not on pinksheets.com It's like the naked shorting thing. We need to have a comprehensive solution, a solution that includes overseas markets, through negotiation and treaties. It can be done. If all the so-called crusaders united instead of IMO partially covering for moneyed interests, we could have fair markets. 4) I agree that there should be penalties for failing to file Form 4's. Whether or not those would be criminal as opposed to civil sanctions, again, would depend on how we go in a comprehensive market re-regulation. Criminal sanctions would likely be in areas that involve actual manipulation, but it would have to be clearly defined if criminal and would include manipulation, irrespective of the source, and include the actions of those who front run on the long and the short side and then manipulate with intent to defraud. It's easier to prove and support the implementation of civil penalties. In my mind, this may be better and more easily implemented. Criminal trials take months. The civil setting may lead to funds for injured parties in a quicker and more effective manner. I would go even further and forbid any insider dumping, as well as dumping by vulture funds, hedge funds, and associates, without prior disclosures. Disgorgement and restitution would be appropriate remedies for starters. 5) S-8's should be for operational and not promotional purposes. I believe that is what you are getting at and I believe that is the way it is supposed to be now. Yes, I oppose the abuses and would call for full disclosure. Again, per above, I'd go further than you and require no dumping until full disclosure and filing online. No more of the paper filings that you can't read online. There is no need for that in today's world except to steal from retail investors. I would change the other rules also with respect to exemptions for registration, that allow intrastate offerings unless there are clear disclosures online and available to all at the same time. 6) Paid stock promoters should be required to disclose details of their payments, irrespective of form. I don't see a problem with whether they are buying at market, but selling into a pump needs to be disclosed. (Same for anyone shorting and then covering into sheeple by posting a further bash.)There should be a form that says that they reserve the right to buy and sell and that they have a conflict, but that is nothing new. The only thing I would perhaps disagree is that they should be able to give names of employees or agents to an agency such as the NASD, without public disclosure. I haven't really thought this one out fully. And I do see the problems on both sides of the pumper/basher world. I do think that anyone who is compensated and posts should have to disclose that. OTOH, I believe that those who work with, trade with, get information from MM's, hedge funds, etc., should also have to disclose that. This type of thing creates some freedom and anonymity issues, so perhaps there is a way to protect individuals' privacy but eliminate some of the manipulation on both sides of the ledger. There is a clear difference if individuals express opinions on a message board. When someone posts about a stock, I would guess that most know that poster is probably long. If someone posts a bash, you have to assume that he is short. We don't want to prosecute ordinary traders who aren't working with funds or MM's or associates in a manipulative fashion. Where it crosses the line into manipulation is always a "facts and circumstances" area and very tough, particularly if we go into criminal penalties and enforcement. The guru trial IMO was a clear area and probably or at least I would hope rare where you had FBI data base info being used and extortion as major factors in the prosecution. So, pupppppy, how's that for delusions? I may be deluded into thinking that we can beat the moneyed manipulators, but I'm going to keep posting and hopefully others will join in as we make the markets modern, efficient, fair and equitable. You have to decide whether you are part of the problem or a help to the solution.