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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (69557)	10/6/1998 1:02:00 PM
From: Jim Patterson	Respond to of 176387

~~OT~~ RE: The courts are wrong! I agree with you. But I will just point out a case to show how liberal the courts are on this matter. I heard of a case where Oldie Discount Brokerage was sued By a client that lost most of his money. Several hundred thousand dollars I believe. Any way, This guy sued and got most of his lost money back. The importance of this, is that Oldie Discount is strictly an order taker. This happened around 1994. Before day trading on the internet was popular. Yes the courts are wrong, but with this kind of precedent being set on a daily basis, It is going to be tough to change. As I said, once every one looses a bunch, it will have to change as the Combined brokerage houses and banks don't have 5 Trillion to give to those that loose. 5 Trillion comes from a 12 Trillion market down 50% and about 1 trillion realizing that they are a big boy and dealing with it. Have a good day. Jim BTW, DELL seems a little week after trading @ 61 1/4 earlier in the day. I am sure it is just a little profit taking from this AM gap up.

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (69557)	10/6/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 176387

OT: Nasdaq fraud appeal denied I agree with most of your points (with the exception of making internet trading illegal) but I don't think that your comments are totally relevent to the case. This may not change your mind, but this article has a tad more information in it that suggests that the issue is more complicated. I don't have an opinion on the particular case but I don't think that we could reasonably argue the merits of the decision without looking at least at the summary from the court, if not the entire decision. I've found that newswires or stories written by the media are often written to get the most "drama" rather than fully explain the issues at hand. October 5, 1998: 3:55 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal by three major brokerage firms in a class-action securities fraud lawsuit by investors who bought and sold stock on the Nasdaq market in 1992 to 1994. The justices let stand a ruling that reinstated the lawsuit against Merrill Lynch and Co. Inc. (MER), PaineWebber Group Inc. (PWJ) and Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. involving Nasdaq, the nation's second-largest stock market. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, charged that the over-the-counter customer order execution practices of the stock-brokerage firms on the Nasdaq electronic system constituted securities fraud. "The questions presented are of profound importance to the securities industry. This action ... itself involves millions of transactions worth billions of dollars," the brokerage firms said in their Supreme Court appeal. The lawsuit charged the Nasdaq system has allowed securities dealers to inflate profit margins at the expense of customers, resulting in inferior execution prices compared with the stock quotes available on other systems. According to the lawsuit, the practices violated the duty of the brokerage firms of best execution of trades, but were never disclosed by the dealers, amounting to securities fraud...." eom> Best Regards, Jim