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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : DCH Technologies (DCH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sawdusty who wrote (504)	2/7/1999 4:00:00 PM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

Dan, thank you for locating the rule in question, "without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof." As far as that rule is concerned; RAM was not paid by DCH Technology to write the report therefore it is under no obligation to disclose its position unless and until it reaches more than 5%. RAM has clearly stated in it's disclaimer that it is a substantial shareholder in DCHT making it clear that RAM has a bias. This is essentially a strawman's issue as RAM can advocate it's positions the same as any other private investor can and they are merely stating their opinions based on their own due diligence and understanding of the marketplace and how stocks of companies in the industry are valued.

To: Sawdusty who wrote (504)	2/7/1999 9:02:00 PM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

Dan, I have read Sect 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, excerpted by you earlier, and again below, with a focus on the key words; "though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof" I believe the key words here are " describes such security for a consideration received or to be received directly or indirectly from an issuer " If RAM is not a promoter, (which it isn't), and is not paid by the company to promote its stock and'or write these research reports, (which it isn't), then in essence it isn't required to use a disclaimer at all as it isn't being paid for the service the rule intends to cover. It is my opinion that RAM has gone above and beyond the call of the spirit of sect 17, in that it has disclosed that it has a substantial position in the stock, when it doesn't have to. I further opine that RAM has put together a fair overview of the company, and that it's disclaimer makes it clear that it is not offering securities and is not meant to be misconstrued as investment advice. In fact, it clearly states that the report is not to be used as a basis for investment pruposes. It may not be enough to please everyone, but it is enough to make it legal, and that's what counts. Now, I would like to see this issue put to bed, and let's get back to the discussion of DCHT's expanding product line, and it's future.