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: W.F. Schwertley who wrote (121)	5/28/1998 5:07:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Respond to of 130

WF What it appears to me is that he is saying that both are wrong, just that one is usually more vigorously enforced. Not a chance that I would want to take. Being the richest guy in the cell block due to insider info is not my idea of a good time. :-) Mark

To: W.F. Schwertley who wrote (121)	5/28/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 130

Pure Folder makes it sound as if making insider information public is no problem unless one profits from buying or selling. WFS I disagree. I asked my Compliance Dept about this question when it originally came up and they mentioned the case of the guy who use to write the 'Heard on the Street' column for the WSJ. I don't recall the details but apparently he had told some people in advance what companies he was going to write about. He never accepted any money from them and made no trades himself. He did not profit yet the SEC prosecuted. Granted their actions may have been prompted by the high profile of the case but it makes it clear that not profiting is not a defense in an insider trading case if they choose to prosecute. BTW you can believe I got some funny looks from Compliance when I asked for 'splitting hairs' definitions of insider trading.