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.

Technology Stocks : BAY Ntwks (under House) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: oldcrow who wrote (2863)	11/23/1997 4:25:00 AM
From: joe feirouz	Respond to of 6980

Allen, Welcome to SI. You can not leave us 1/2 hanging. Tells us what you know. To be honest with you what you post will probably not hold up in court because 1) We are relatively small players a few thousand shares is not worth going after (assuming you are a small player) 2) You have a pen name that takes credibility away from you...somewhat 3) You would just be quoting what somebody fells as long as your post is an opinion I am not sure that is insider information... It has been noted that insider setiment for Bay Networks is positive. You implied that the news is good by saying you had some shares and you just increased your position. I have a friend who works in a company everytime he thinks he has inside information i would find an article that has been published 2 weeks prior to his report. In most cases (99%) the street knows before the employees do ( at least the employees who are not in high management or the secretaries). But the bottom line is trust your judgement if you want to tell us the full story tell us. Otherwise don't leave us hanging.

To: oldcrow who wrote (2863)	11/23/1997 10:07:00 AM
From: Wallace Rivers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6980

If the CEO opines to the general public that the stock should be higher, there is nothing illegal about that!! If the CEO didn't think that way, I would be uncomfortable as a long! If the CEO's opinion is based on material fact (product releases, earnings, etc.), then this could be considered insider info. In this case, it doesn't sound like material info, rather, a confident opinion/prediction.

To: oldcrow who wrote (2863)	11/23/1997 2:10:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Respond to of 6980

Allen- If I passed on what the employee said to SI would that be illegal, or at a minimum would I be accused of hyping? Although I am not a lawyer, I am fairly certain that you could not be legally culpable for reporting what an insider told you- the same does not necessarily apply to the insider, of course. I do not believe the concept of corporate insider is well-defined, but generally refers to people who have access to privileged information about the company. By privileged information I mean information that could materially affect the price of a company's stock but that is not public (that is not a legal definition). Certainly top executives qualify as insiders, but so might a salesperson who knows the status of an order that could significantly affect a company's stock. The concept of being an insider is not limited to the firm's employees. For example, accountants, lawyers and commercial bankers may all have access to inside information that they are legally obliged to keep secret. For example, Dennis Levine of the now defunct Drexel, Burnhan, Lambert used or passed on inside information about companys on whose behalf he was working, and went to jail for doing so. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court more precisely defined the idea of insiders who are not employees. Speaking only for myself, but I think reflecting the thinking of others on SI, posts based on rumors and hearsay may or may not be welcome. For a variety of reasons, a poster may wish not to reveal a source- but it's helpful to describe a little bit about the source. A poster should be honest about what he or she really knows, but of course cannot be held accountable for posting false information given to him by a source that could reasonably be described as credible. But, if you hear a juicy rumor from a source you know nothing about, (the inebriated fellow you met in a bar last night?) I'd say go ahead and post it, but please post enough information to allow readers to draw some conclusions about how much credibility to place on the source. What is quite frowned upon, of course, is the shameless hyping of stocks on SI (or anywhere else for that matter) simply for personal gain. Unfortunately, SI has its share of such people. For example, a poster with the handle ol'49r has been accused, and did not deny, that he/she was paid to promote some small mining stock on another web forum. As you gain experience on SI, you will develop your own techniques of evaluating the credibility of posters. At the risk of being carried away, the SI BAY thread has a good example. About one year ago, Cruiser, who may well qualify as a BAY insider, was waging a somewhat lonely battle on SI to place BAY's prospects in a favorable light. I made the decision based on his or her cyber-personna that he was either a more clever hypster than I could unmask, or was a credible source giving an honest opinion. My decision to buy BAY rested in no small part on Cruiser's postings. As BAY's stock languished, I recall rushing to his defense when he was attacked as being little more than a cheerleader. Fortunately for me- and others on this thread- my judgement in this case proved excellent. Sorry to be so long-winded, Larry