Forum Rules -- Read Before Posting

[Sachin]

These are proposed forum rules from my post in the Suggestions Thread that started this forum:

1. All advice in this forum is strictly amateur. This is the equivalent of talking stocks with your relatives. Take all advice here as a starting point, not as a conclusion. Offline professional advice is recommended for serious financial decisions.

2. Touting individual securities or other financial instruments is prohibited. Discussing the merits of security classes is encouraged. For example, touting Microsoft (MSFT) is not allowed, but discussing the relative merits of technology stocks vs. bond funds should be an interesting discussion.

3. Under no circumstances should users consider any advice given on here to contain the endosement of BigSoccer.com or its affiliates.

4. Political discussions, even of economic issues, belong in the Politics forum. If your post contains the words "Republican", "Democrat", "liberal", and/or "conservative" then repost it in the politics forum. Exception: discussion of "conservative" investment strategies vis. a vis. risky ones.

5. Think carefully before posting personal financial information. We have no idea who is lurking. Posts containing ID information such as home address, social security numbers, etc, will be deleted.

6. Do not post solicitations for financial services, earning extra money, etc. Those are not permitted under BigSoccer TOS.

7. Have fun.

One further addition:

It was asked if discussions of corporate strategy and how it relates to stock price would be permitted. I'm not keen on allowing discussions of individual companies, but I'm willing to be pursuaded.

What does everyone think?

Thanks,

Sachin

[bostonsoccermdl]

I agree with all of these, but I think some freedom should be allowed with discussing companies past activity and price behavior..

It is far from touting, and more of a historical evaluation.

[Sachin]

Just for the record, bostonsoccermdl also moderates this forum.

I agree we'll have to keep a close eye on how individual securities are promoted.

Anyone else with any thoughts?

Sachin

[dreamer]

Just for the record, bostonsoccermdl also moderates this forum.

I agree we'll have to keep a close eye on how individual securities are promoted.


Or simply discussed?

Maybe it's just me. But sometimes someone thinking very highly of a stock doesn't automatically invalidates that person's opinion of that stock.

[sarabella]

Don't you think that discussing stocks might cause some liability issues? I'm no lawyer, but it seems like someone could come back and cause some trouble for getting bad advice. Might want to talk to Huss about adding something along those lines to the Terms of Service as kind of a CYA kinda thing.

[Sachin]

This has been an ongoing question (see the thread in the Customer Service forum), but Huss certainly agreed to have this forum.

If it gets beyond the amateur stage and into people attemping to proffer professional advice, we will have to revisit it.

Sachin

[Txtriathlete]

I think talking about stocks is a keeper, I for one would love to disucuss them, be its quarterly reports, P/E or anything for opinion. As long as you mention how no on is liable for advice given or taken here, then we should be fine. Just like a typical message board thats attached to financial news on yahoo.

[Sachin]

I think we'll need a ruling from Huss on this... I'll PM this thread and ask him to post an opinion.

Sachin

[DamonEsquire]

Well, there is forums for stock chat (similiar v-board for that matter, I think). They never get into depthof conversation. Like here (BS). So it is professionalism, that could win out.

[Sachin]

Good stuff... keep it coming.

Sachin

[bostonsoccermdl]

I think talking about stocks is a keeper, I for one would love to disucuss them, be its quarterly reports, P/E or anything for opinion. As long as you mention how no on is liable for advice given or taken here, then we should be fine. Just like a typical message board thats attached to financial news on yahoo.

I agree. I also agree w/Sarabella re: a disclaimer on the thread. Personally, anyone who is going to come to a soccer site for serious advice and act on it, without looking into it themsleves unfortuantely deserves what is coming to them..

I just think it should be up to mods to determine what is promoting a particular security and what is simply discussion.

I think we should allow the forum to start off as loose as possible, and get stricter if need be. Hopefully we wont have to.

[dreamer]

Might want to talk to Huss about adding something along those lines to the Terms of Service as kind of a CYA kinda thing.

He should. In this new forum, there are going to be discussions of all kinds of financial and investment ideas, not just stocks, that may lead to losing investment decisions. And some people do get quite angry when they lose money.

Just curious, have any voters or politicians slammed Huss with lawsuits for making losing decisions under the influence of a few of the more eloquent posters in the Political Forum yet? ;)

[Sachin]

If anyone takes the politics forum seriously, they deserve what they get.

Sachin

[sarabella]

If anyone takes the politics forum seriously, they deserve what they get.

Sachin
Agreed, but I'd hate to see a frivolous lawsuit over some silly stock tip on the boards. Dreamer is right -- people tend to take money more seriously than most things. I'd bet a line or two in the Terms of Service, to which we all must agree when we sign up, would more than suffice to eliminate Bigsoccer's liability.

[dreamer]

If anyone takes the politics forum seriously, they deserve what they get.

Sachin


Same should be said about here maybe? People do have different takes on the same story or even the same facts and numbers, and that's what makes a market.

But Huss does need to spell it out to limit future liability I think.

[Huss]

our liability on this board is no different than the content on any board - we assume no responsibility for the content. please reference faq > tos.

thx

[Sachin]

Thanks Huss.

Sachin

[christopher d]

It was asked if discussions of corporate strategy and how it relates to stock price would be permitted. I'm not keen on allowing discussions of individual companies, but I'm willing to be pursuaded. Sorry I'm coming to the thread a wee bit late. I was the one with the above request, and so I'll add my persuasion.

It wasn't so much "may we include the way a particular corporate strategy might directly affect that corporation's price per share?", but rather "may we extend the breadth of the discussion to include issues of corporate strategy, because that often has an effect (long and short-term, and these are often not the same) on a corporation's price per share?".

For instance: I'm an avid reader of Fast Company. They ran an article which I found particularly interesting about a move DaimlerChrysler was making in the US. It had vague political overtones (will small cars sell in the US, etc), but I found it a fascinating strategy discussion, and much more so when detached from the environmental and socio-political elements of the discussion. So, I post it on the Politics board. No traction, except for a few snide Euros, a few SUV enthusiasts, and some of my fellow bleeding-hearts, each with their obligatory and predictable opinions. Nothing about corporate strategy, whether from a product-line or marketing-communications or supply-chain or value chain or whatever perspective. Obviously the wrong forum. Where should it have gone -- FFA?

I'm not an active investor -- I could probably do a quick and dirty corporate valuation if I had to, but only with my 1st year Finance book sitting next to me. But, I know that the price-per-share of a firm's stock will have an impact on their corporate strategy in a number of ways. (For instance, even if a decision might make long-term sense, what effect will an initial negative impact have on the 10-Q, and will a resulting drop in share price mean a drop in credit-rating, making access to money that much more difficult, and will that affect the firm's ability to execute that strategy?) And it's quite intuitive to see how the converse works. For instance, AT&T's strategic decision to purchase half of the coax in the country had a rather direct impact on it's price per share ;)

It's my belief that this relationship between strategy and stock price extend beyond the individual firm, but on into the sector and the macro-economy. Therefore, just as general discussions on credit ratings, 90-day trends, performance vs. indices etc. leads naturally into discussions on Fed/ECB moves, overall market health, sector performance and diversification; discussions on individual company strategic moves can slide nicely into general theory on strategy, or even sector or firm-size specific discussions on strategy.

The jist is that while this will most likely be a forum that concentrates on issues of finance and investing, it would be nice if it were receptive and/or open to general discussion on all matters business.

[bostonsoccermdl]

SobearCal,

I dont really have a problem with it at all. I would like to look at this forum as a "learn as you go, work in progress," seeing allowing as much as we can, until it starrts to go the wrong direction.

If we can have a such threads without politics creeping into it, I say lets try it. But we wont know unless we try...

my .02. Sachin might disagree.