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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: accountclosed who wrote (52735)	3/20/1999 3:10:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 132070

AR, Every trade I post is front-running, as I don't post it until after I've taken a position, or, at the earliest, while I am taking a position. There is nothing illegal about front-running, per se. What is illegal is in not making full disclosure of the fact if you are a offering advice for money. That is why you see all the disclaimers on brokerage research reports, you know, "Merrill has a position of X dollars in this issue." To me, if somebody's info is worth knowing about, it would be foolish for that person to not take advantage of it before telling the world. There are many exceptions that are illegal. Here are few: 1. When you run a portfolio, you cannot buy for your personal account and then buy for the portfolio. When I managed money, I generally invested only in the funds I managed, if they were mutual funds, or with the insurance co. and hedge fund, in other mutual funds not of interest to the folks whose money I managed. It is obvious that if I buy a stock for $50,000, and then put $100 million of fund money into the issue, I can artificially make my small position look pretty good. That is a no-no. 2. If you do trade house or personal money, you have to be very careful that the customer get equal or better trades. One of my buddies got into hot water for this. He worked for a firm where he managed funds and the company's partners mingled account. It seems the partners were always buying and selling options at huge profits while the fund shareholders couldn't get a break. He didn't do time, and that amazes me. He is a good guy, personally, but that was bad mojo. In fact, it was that case that took me out of the "expert witness" business, as I would not testify against a friend even though he was guilty and the prosecutors got mad at me for turning them down. 3. Saying false things about a co. because you hold a position, long or short. That is why you see so many notes to me asking me to confess and reveal my "short" position on any co. I trash. <g> The fact that I had revealed my position before and as I trashed them never crosses the minds, such as they are, of such folks. Or, the idea that I believe what I am saying and that is why I am trashing the co. The tail shouldn't wag the dog here. If you are stuck in a losing position, you can't make up stories about a company to try to save yourself. This is something that happens all the time on the net. I think the line on the net has to be whether the information is concept presented as fact, or a flat out lie. For me to say that MU is a bunch of slimers is concept presented as fact and probably a bad thing for me to say, legally. For me to say, IMHO, MU oozes when they walk, is o.k. and I don't have to produce phots of the ooze. <g> Can the SEC police the net? Yup, the same way they do off the net. By relying on informers. Most of the time, it probably isn't worth the bother as the person who is touting or trashing dishonestly is a non-player.