|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
O Man, Ron, Robert, et al,
This is my final post on this time-wasting, inane thread. It's way past time to kill it or take it private.
O Man is probably right - the doctor did not violate insider trading rules. It is almost certainly a scam. But we don't know for sure.
Dr. H's original post is ok and just an opinion - until the final sentence:
The entire US population will know about it in 3 weeks and the shelves will be emptied the next day, imo.
This is the impending event close - designed to hook the suckers. It implies that Dr. H knows something very few know. Now he will share it with you and you will be into the stock early, for a change, if you don't wait too long. Wow ! A free lunch! We all know we should avoid the "free lunch" but getting into a stock early is different. Sure it is.
There is another far less likely possibility. Dr. H really does know about some event that will be positive enough to empty the shelves and, presumably, pump up the stock price. It is something that the entire US population is unaware of. If it is factual and the public does not know about it, and it will materially affect the price of the stock it *is* inside information. It doesn't matter where he got the information. If it is factual, it can
ultimately be traced back to the company. At least that is the position the SEC or NASD will take. If you or the doctor act on this information and make money you will be subject to penalties (if you get caught).
Another possibility is that the doc is just blowing smoke. You may get lucky and make some money, but why not throw a dart.
The point is that none of these three possibilities represents an opportunity for a serious investor. If you are interested in hot tips and free lunches, there are plenty of chat groups and bulletin boards on AOL. Or call your broker. He gets plenty of tips. Why waste your time here ?
That's my position. Only private responses to disagreements.
Jim
____________
editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Folks, there's absolutely nothing illegal in what the doctor did.
>
> First of all, insiders, generally corporate officers and directors, may trade. They simply have to report their trading.
>
> Secondly, a doctor who uses a product and is impressed with it has not received insider information. Insider information generally refers to information provided in confidence by an officer, director or, in rare cases, an informed employee of a company. And, in fact, officers and directors may trade on their knowledge as long as they do not do so in breach of their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and as long as they report their trades.
>
> Third, this has nothing to do with the Equity Funding case. That case was about the duty of *an analyst* to publicly release very important information regarding the state of a certain company. It has nothing to do with the doctor's publication of his thoughts to this list.
>
> Finally, there is absolutely nothing illegal about stating an opinion on a stock or on any other market in a public forum such as this.
>
> The Mad Man (TM)
>
>
|