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 : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (16822)	7/27/1998 3:48:00 PM
From: Pullin-GS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

Went long 25 9/16. Am I a fool? Or am I a fool?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (16822)	7/27/1998 4:12:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22053

So tell me: Is anyone else's portfolio down more than 1&frac12 testicles for the year?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (16822)	7/29/1998 5:09:00 PM
From: Moonray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

SEC nudges companies for detailed Y2K plans Posted at 1:25 p.m. PDT Wednesday, July 29, 1998 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Disappointed by the skimpy disclosures that much of Corporate America has made of its Year 2000 readiness, federal regulators are nudging companies to provide more details so investors can be better informed. The Securities and Exchange Commission voted Wednesday to issue guidelines on how publicly traded companies as well as investment companies, such as mutual funds, should make the required disclosures of Year 2000 costs and risks. Many companies have provided only ''boilerplate'' disclosures, formulaic and short on meaningful details, in their quarterly and annual financial reports to the market watchdog agency, SEC officials complain. As all sectors of government and the economy come to grips with the Year 2000 computer problem, some observers have warned that costs to companies of getting ready could punch a hole in their profits and hurt stock prices on Wall Street. In addition, the financial industry is believed to be especially vulnerable to Year 2000 glitches, and some experts are concerned that consumers could lose faith in the security of their banks, other financial institutions and the stock markets. ''I am concerned that many companies are not adequately disclosing their Year 2000 readiness,'' SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. said before the 5-0 vote. ''Our economy is more inter-connected than ever before. One company's lack of readiness could have adverse consequences for countless other companies.'' At the same time, Levitt warned, if investors don't have sufficient information regarding a company's readiness, ''long-term confidence can be seriously undermined. Panic and overreaction can ensue -- rippling through our economy and disrupting business at every level.'' While the SEC decided to issue guidelines interpreting current standards rather than create a formal rule, the disclosure standards do have teeth in them. ''We will be sure to enforce'' SEC rules against companies that make materially false and misleading statements about Year 2000 readiness, SEC Enforcement Director Richard Walker said in an interview. ''We take it very seriously.'' He said no specific penalties exist for such violations and they would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Laura Unger, who is leading the SEC's Year 2000 effort, stressed the need for companies to disclose not only the costs of fixing the problem but also the potential consequences of not adequately doing so. As for the SEC's own internal readiness, with just over 500 days until Jan. 1, 2000, Unger said, ''I think that we're on the right track. I think we have a ways to go.'' o~~~ O