Forum Rules -- Read Before Posting

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

HEY,


What happened to my thread on moving money to small banks or credit unions?

It was informational, professional and informative, offering Big Soccer forum users valid and useful information on how they could both improve financial returns and make an ethical statement about what they would like to see from the banking industry. I find it incomprehensible that you guys would yank an informational thread on ethical banking the same day that Goldman gets sued by the SEC. Don't you guys read the papers? What gives? I'd really like to know why you felt that thread should be removed.

 

ok then, I don't know if that should make me feel better or worse...

I feel very strongly on this topic, but I didn't want to appear unduly shrill on this forum... I wanted to be calm and professional. Maybe I ended up sounding too much like a commercial/informatial? Don't be misled by the calm tone-- I'm really major hacked and out for blood!