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.

Biotech / Medical : Techniclone (TCLN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shero who wrote (2780)	12/8/1998 3:06:00 PM
From: Susan Saline	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

TCLN conversation with Investor Relations at 2:45 pm today Message 6742930

To: shero who wrote (2780)	12/8/1998 3:14:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 3702

messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com Thanks for that reference Shero. If I receive what is non-public information, first of all, I don't trust it too much. Secondly, if I know it, lots of other people know it, so the value of insider information is often questionable. Thirdly, the test is really 'sneaky profits'. If you or somebody you advise benefits from non-public information, then that is insider trading. There must be huge grey areas - any employee for a company has got insider information if only in their own little division and job. To be pure, it is impossible for an employee to buy or sell stock in the company for which they work. Or even the industry as one can often learn confidential things about a competitor. Panicky worry about inadvertent insider trading seems silly. The SEC isn't going to prosecute people who read things on SI, even if there was not an official public release of information. If I receive 'insider information', my preference is to publish it here. It is then absolutely and definitely 'public information' as anyone with an internet connection = most people who are involved in buying or selling shares, can read Silicon Investor without having to pay any money, so it is unrestricted access [unlike the New York Times and other sources]. Sometimes people tell me things in confidence as part of discussing something. Of course that is insider information, so I have to not buy or sell any stock if it was material information which would affect the stock price. Nor tell somebody else who might. If somebody has told me something material which would affect the share price I'd feel uncomfortable. Which means having to be quiet about it and not trade. There is plenty of profit to be had by thinking about public information and drawing correct conclusions. Scavenging for insider information can be disappointing and illegal. Companies should be as open as they can be, informing shareholders and the public on any material matters as soon as they can. Techniclone has in previous incarnations had a culture of secretiveness [it seems to me anyway] which feeds fear, uncertainty and doubt and breeds unpleasant feelings in people associated with it - whether employees, customers or shareholders. It still doesn't seem boisterously open and communicative, despite the high-priced Rubenstein help. [I'm guessing at high-priced, but I suspect as much]. If it was boisterously open and communicative, there wouldn't be all the jabbering and wondering on what the hell is going on in the chat rooms. I earlier this year received what could have been insider information about Techniclone, so I put what I heard here. And didn't buy or sell any shares [I'm too long in the tooth to buy something on a tip anyway]. I didn't want to carry that risk of knowing something and being accused of passing it on privately. You objected that such information was being passed around the Web. I agree with you, it shouldn't be. So I published it. When TCLN was fundraising earlier this year, they sent me an email offer to buy convertible warrants at a discount to market, where I'd receive interest and a year or something later could convert to stock at a discount of 15% I think it was. They wanted the offer treated in confidence, which surprised me. I can't see why all shareholders can't be made the same offer and at least know exactly what offers are being made. I declined the offer because I don't like complex deals, pages and pages and pages long. I just want to buy some stock = "Ok, fair enough, here's my money, give me a share of the company! And keep me informed on what is going on." Quite simple and straightforward. Also, the share price was too low and I didn't want to own stock in a delisted company! "Managing" information is fine as long as it doesn't inhibit communication, but better to err on the side of glasnost. Maurice PS: Reverse Split: I just thought I'd mention it to stop people getting withdrawal symptoms.