🚀 go-pugleaf

"Monte" <montep@email.com> wrote in message
news:3d385d5e.85288127@news.ev1.net...
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:19:13 -0400, "Mark Probert"
> <mark_probertREMOVEGARBAGE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >BTW, I am looking for the actual date that the SEC dropped the
> >investigation, not just some statement that says 'last year.' I have this
> >problem of liking specifics...
> >
> >
>
> Hmmmm, you may like specifics, but with your reading abilities that
> must make it terribly difficult for you.  So here is an extract from
> the URL:(note the first sentence of the second paragraph)
>
> "....Such alleged IPO spinning where securities firms silently
> allocate chunks of hot new stocks to the personal brokerage accounts
> they hold for corporate executives was temporarily rooted out four
> years ago, when regulators investigated the practice after disclosures
> by The Wall Street Journal.
>
>         But regulators never brought any charges the SEC ended its
> initial investigation last year, said people familiar with the matter
> and spinning revived in a big way during the later part of the
> technology-stock bubble. Getting IPO shares during the dot-com boom
> was akin to being handed a windfall, on paper at least. Thus, it was
> very difficult for most investors to get shares. Wall Street firms,
> which have great leeway in deciding who gets the shares, generally
> reserved much of the stock for their most-favored customers, typically
> wealthy investors and big mutual funds."

Thanks for your kind help.

The real problem I have is with your attack on Pitt. He was appointed on
August 3, 2001. When was he confirmed? If he was not running the show when
the invesdtigation was shut down, then, you are quite wrong.

So, you can see what specifics can do for the showing of ones intelligence.

BTW, I went to HS with Harvey.

Have a nice day.