To: Cosmo Daisey who wrote (1245 ) 10/28/1997 4:22:00 PM From: Chung Yang Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 3441
Coz: I agree with you in the relative ineffectiveness of the SEC, but at least there is something. But I do remember that there is a rule which sez, no mutual fund is able to own either more than 2.5% or 10% of a company I can't remember. But my point is with such rule stock manipulation by fund companies is pretty difficult. >>>Chung, as an exercise in fulitility try this: Write to the SEC with a question to their Web Site. You will receive an automated response in a few days saying they are concerned with your question and will get back to you within 90 days. After six months with no response you may get tired of waiting. The SEC won't take on the big boys. Fidelity Funds manager Vinik was doing the opposite in the market from his stated public position, what happened? Nothing. The SEC isn't here to protect the individual investors, its here to make you think that is their purpose. Sure they got <<< No you are right, SEC is not here to protect individual investors. They are here to protect activities which would affect the market negatively. Like fund companies manipulating small stocks, insider trading ... etc. Nothing is there to help the small investors, but they are there to protect a company from being illegally manipulated. >>> Ivan and Mike but Ivan still has smoked Salmon for dinner every night and Mike is involved in the market through his family trust. It takes years to stop a scam brokerage firm from operating and millions out of investors pockets. This is not meant to be an anti-government or anti anything, its just the way it is, its all about money. <<< I agree. Unfortunately this is also why we invest in the stock market in the first place. - Chung