Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Caveat emptor (Score 5, Interesting) 325

by pkaral (#17705394) Attached to: The Anatomy of Pump n' Dump Stock Spamming
I assume most will not read the paper, so here is a couple of points to consider before weighing into the discussion:

* The touting is not illegal in and of itself - most touters are even including disclosures about their own activities (it is, however, one of the authors' recommendations to nail some of them for breach of CAN-SPAM)
* These are not NASDAQ or NYSE stocks, and don't behave anything like that. Those are unknown, small stocks with very small trading volumes. The touter and the people he is fooling are often making up much of the trading activity in the period around the touting. They are also "penny" stocks, which "tick" in pretty large increments (percentagewise).
* Consequently, the only people likely to benefit or hurt are the touters and the people who bought into their messages (i.e. no "innocent bystanders")

It is unclear to me that this is a problem for the regulators, at least not from the point of view of protecting the "victims". After all, people are free to make bad choices and these are not fraud cases (the authors note that this is "investor irrationality"). There is, however, a negative impact on everyone else, because this sustains high spam levels. Probably the "CAN-SPAM direction" is the regulatory way to go, rather than something more specific related to touting of financial assets.

There is an old saying that goes caveat emptor - Let the Buyer Beware.

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Working...