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 : IMDS nasdaq bulletin board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (3091)	4/3/1999 9:00:00 AM
From: Labrador	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4122

ATTENTION TRADERS OF OTC BULLETIN BOARD AND PINK SHEETS STOCKS The SEC has reproposed amendments to Rule 15c2-11 which could have a very negative effect on the OTC markets. Legitimate market makers may stop making markets, liquidity will decrease, and fraud may increase. This is not the goal of the proposal of course, but this is the likely result. While the SEC should obviously continue taking steps to reduce penny stock fraud, the current proposals look like a step in the wrong direction. The reproposed amendments to Rule 15c2-11 would require all broker-dealers to review current issuer information before publishing priced quotations for a security. (The rule's piggyback provision would be eliminated.) In addition, broker-dealers publishing priced quotations for a security would be required to review current information about the issuer annually and upon the occurrence of specified events. The main difference between this proposal and the original proposal is that some larger or more actively traded companies would be excluded from the rule's coverage. While this proposal may sound good at first, it will probably end up scaring away market makers. Why? Because if market makers become responsible for learning about the stocks they make a market in, and are supposed to avoid stocks where there may be fraud, then market makers will fear getting sued by investors if a stock they make a market in turns out to be a scam, a fraud, or just a failure. Why take this chance? It might be safer just to abandon these OTC stocks. Additionally, the time and expense required for market makers to research all the OTC stocks they make a market in could also scare them away. And with less market makers, liquidity decreases and spreads may widen. Plus, with legitimate market makers out of the way, it becomes easier for the sleazy market makers to manipulate stock prices. Market makers should not be given the burden of seeking out stock fraud. Their role is to provide liquidity. Regulators should be the ones who try to reduce stock fraud. (As well as StockDetective.com.) To learn more about the proposal, please see: The SEC's proposal: sec.gov

To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (3091)	4/3/1999 10:22:00 AM
From: Dan O	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4122

Please compare the following two quotes - the first from Dick denying that he and his company ever improperly promoted the Lintroscan and the second from the FDA auditor saying that they did: Grable: "The FDA action taken in Wisconsin concerning the LINTRO-SCAN resulted because of the irresponsible action of the individual who owned the LINTRO-SCAN and personally chose to promote it improperly. The individual promoted the LINTRO-SCAN as a REPLACEMENT FOR MAMMOGRAPHY, A CLAIM NEVER MADE BY ME OR ANYONE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPANY. Mrs. Grable nor I had any control over the device nor how it was promoted or used after it was sold. The posting presents this fact in a totally different manner." Richard Grable email previously posted on this board (capital emphasis mine). FDA: "Ms. Grable stated that the "Rose" brochure was revised sometime in 1988. As previously discussed LILI was incorporated in Florida on or about February 1988. Ms. Grable stated that she personally changed the wording. During the inspection, Richard J. Grable stated that Linda B. Grable had changed the wording, on her own initiative. The new wording reads in part, "*the Lintro-Scan examination is recommended INSTEAD OF MAMMOGRAPHY particularly for:women with very dense breasts where mammography may not provide a good image, Pregnant women.*" (etc.)." FDA report Sept 6-21, page 10 (capital emphasis mine). So, call me short, long or indifferent. Here I have two quotes - one from an FDA report and one from Richard Grable. They APPEAR to be saying oppositte things. I'm willing to entertain contrary evidence, but I've seen none. If you think I am misrepresenting something, go to Skolnicks site and read for yourself. You can see Dicks email back in Aug of 1998 posted on AOL by DrJMF1 and posted on SI on 8/26/98, post 1630, I believe.