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.

Pastimes : Can SI Members Really Manipulate Stocks? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ewaggin who wrote (79)	7/31/1998 3:51:00 PM
From: UDanWright	Respond to of 461

Jeff...Sorry I had to post the whole article......... SEC Forms Internet Fraud Office .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - Responding to the growth in securities fraud over the Internet, the Securities and Exchange Commission has established a new office to fight it. The market watchdog agency on Tuesday announced the formation of the Office of Internet Enforcement. ''While the Internet has many benefits, a small group of thieves is trying to hijack unsuspecting investors on the information superhighway,'' said Richard Walker, the SEC's director of enforcement. Securities fraud using the Internet has grown in recent years along with the bull market on Wall Street. Walker noted that the SEC already has brought more than 30 cases involving Internet fraud. They have included nearly every type of investment scam, such as phony stock offerings, stock-price manipulation, affinity group frauds targeting specific ethnic or religious groups, and pyramid schemes in which funds from new investors are used to pay off promised returns to other investors. The SEC's online Enforcement Complaint Center now receives more than 120 complaints a day of potential securities fraud over the Internet. The new Internet office will be headed by John Stark, now the SEC's special counsel for Internet projects in the Enforcement Division. Jay Perlman, a senior attorney in the SEC's chief counsel's office, will be Stark's deputy. AP-NY-07-28-98 1721EDT

To: ewaggin who wrote (79)	7/31/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: Shoot1st	Respond to of 461

Might even qualify for RICO status Shoot1st

To: ewaggin who wrote (79)	7/31/1998 4:19:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 461

The thing you don't understand is that people like anyone would apply the censorship axe to anyone who posts a negative opinion. It does not even matter if in the long run the naysayers are proven correct (see Solv Ex thread for example). anyone's argument is that the Internet is somehow a "special" environment, and my argument is that it is not. I also get tired of the lunatic claims that the manipulation is from the short side. The vast majority of manipulation is done from the long side. As to your examples: It is not against the law to yell fire in a theatre if the theatre is on fire. Even so, Internet postings do not rise to the level of immediacy of that act, nor does it represent a threat to life or limb. I can call any public figure I want a bastard. You are mistaken if you think I have to prove that he is one. Something that a lot of people forget is that these are the stock of public companies. Even a private figure would have to prove that my calling him a bastard caused him some sort of quantifiable damage. The long and the short of it is that most of these folks are offended because they were foolish enough to buy a stock that subsequently fell. It is a lot easier to blame the evil short sellers than to admit that you got suckered into a pump and dump. My position is that this is exactly equivalent to publishing a newspaper, or a magazine, or a racially inflammatory Ku Klux Klan handout. They're all equal. Barb

To: ewaggin who wrote (79)	7/31/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 461

Thus, you can say "in my opinion, so-and-so is a bastard", but if you say "so-and-so IS a bastard", you'd better be able to back it up. Actually, if I were to say "so and so is a convicted child molester, in my opinion", I'd still be as culpable as if I didn't include the disclaimer. Those three words still don't give one a license to lie. - Jeff

To: ewaggin who wrote (79)	7/31/1998 5:12:00 PM
From: Just My Opinion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 461

Ewaggin: At least you have taken the time to read what I am posting, and to think about it. Regardless of what Barb wants to be true, posting fraudulently (to make gains) is a definite no no, vis a vis the SEC. (I believe) You didn't think I was just referring to disagreements about the value of any given company did you? law.uc.edu I think that this applies to all of us. That's why I kept asking her to just do it. I wanted to see if I was right.