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 : NAXOF, Tell me all THE SAINT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mark silvers who wrote (96)	4/23/1998 8:09:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 130

Mark and WF, I have always been told that intent could get you in trouble with insider laws and not gaining by the information was not a defense. A specific hypothetical would be someone who was privy to insider information and took no personal action but told others who may act in some fashion. The original person, despite not gaining, is chargeable with violating insider rules. It becomes a matter of how tough the SEC cares to be in a particular instance, they have some discretion. Many firms, such as Mark's and mine, tend to be cautious on this issue and enforce stricter guidelines than the law just to be safe. So it is possible that both of us have a view that the insider laws are more extensive than they actually are. I will check with my compliance people as well. Henry