Jump to content

Bugatti-Driving 26-Year-Old Tied to Penny-Stock Website


LowIQinvestor
 Share

Recommended Posts

Honestly couldnt feel less sorry for the victims if I tried. You were a greedy dumb pig, and thought you could get rich easy. You took a dumb risk and lost money. Even when I knew next to nothing about stocks I knew better then to throw money at some of these penny stock promotions.

 

Just seems weird these guys get punished for it. I mean you have the responsibility to not do dumb things with your money and to actually check if what they say is true. How are these people suddenly victims? It literally takes like an hour to actually check annual reports etc to see if they are not lying. If you cant be bothered to invest like a fking hour to get rich, you deserve to lose your money.

 

:o

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagreed. I think society at large would be a nicer place if you try to punish people who do stuff like that. It's a slippery slope, but my gut tells me that driving in a Bugatti financed by scamming retired couples should not be encouraged.

 

But up until what point (if any) should you protect people from their own biases and stupidity? Difficult stuff.

 

Maybe you should ban the victims from participating in financial markets (just like casino bans). Or give a portion of the seized assets to a charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seems weird these guys get punished for it. I mean you have the responsibility to not do dumb things with your money and to actually check if what they say is true. How are these people suddenly victims? It literally takes like an hour to actually check annual reports etc to see if they are not lying. If you cant be bothered to invest like a fking hour to get rich, you deserve to lose your money.

 

:o

 

In a way I agree with you, but I also think that authorities need to sometimes protect people from themselves.

 

Part of me doesn't really see the difference between this, and people like Ackman and Icahn going public on positions, which do move markets although nowhere near as much as with penny stocks.

 

If I were to run a blog, and post a great thesis on a penny stock and its price ran up 200% as a result, I could quite legitimately sell as its reached full value, but to outsiders this looks like a pump and dump. Ethically, it is all about the intention of the one "pumping" the stock, but that's pretty hard for a court to ascertain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't understand how it's someone's fault for trying to invest their money.

 

this guy who lied to people in order to make gains on worthless stock did something wrong, and it should be illegal. it doesn't matter whether the things are copied from annual letters or not.

 

nobody in their right mind can say that these people he managed to clean up were meant to lose their savings. in an ideal world everybody is an expert at everything, but until then we need some laws to protect people and the fruits of their hard work.

 

scamming people out of their money is WRONG and should be punishable, doesn't matter whether it's done with weighed dice or the stock exchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scamming people out of their money is WRONG and should be punishable, doesn't matter whether it's done with weighed dice or the stock exchange.

 

It very much depends on what industry you are in and who you are doing it to...

 

If you are an "educator", you get a different standard.  A Michigan lawsuit vs. Cooley was dismissed, as students should NOT have relied on figures published by the school.  The judge ruled that students SHOULD HAVE KNOWN not to rely on published figures presented by their school regarding employment and salary outcomes.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/07/appeals_court_dismisses_lawsui.html

 

This is not the only case like this...

 

If perspective students should not rely on published by their schools, what should they rely on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not going to get very far in law if you don't think laterally about what a statistic means and represents.  Don't have much sympathy for the students - they should consider it a learning experience.

 

As for the Bucket Shops, they are deliberately setting out to lie, target the ignorant and vulnerable, and misrepresent things.  Society would break down if all customers were expected to do full due diligence.  Imagine if you had to check the medical qualifications on every doctor you went to, and then medically educate yourself on their advice!

 

The Bugatti guy should go to prison, but it does surprise me that they seem to find so many victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Bucket Shops, they are deliberately setting out to lie, target the ignorant and vulnerable, and misrepresent things.  Society would break down if all customers were expected to do full due diligence.  Imagine if you had to check the medical qualifications on every doctor you went to, and then medically educate yourself on their advice!

 

You don't think schools aren't deliberately setting out to lie?  That they aren't targeting the "ignorant, vulnerable and misrepresented things"?

 

Why is there a different standard for bucket shop operators and schools? Or medical providers, or food processors?  Why are there different standards for anybody?

 

School is BIG BUSINESS in America.  We are talking about HUGE amounts of money.  Many employees at these "non-profit" institutions are making HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars & great benefits!

 

So the question becomes one of different standards of conduct for different operators...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree the schools are lying.  Perhaps they are being a bit selective in their disclosure.  But at the end of the day, if you're going to university, a) Your success is mostly down to you. b) You should have the intelligence to question what you are being told.

 

A 90 year old woman, whose husband died last year who always did the finances, and may be in the early stages of dementia, needs some protection, I would say.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree the schools are lying.  Perhaps they are being a bit selective in their disclosure.  But at the end of the day, if you're going to university, a) Your success is mostly down to you. b) You should have the intelligence to question what you are being told.

 

A 90 year old woman, whose husband died last year who always did the finances, and may be in the early stages of dementia, needs some protection, I would say.

 

ukvalueinvestment - There are plenty of For-Profit schools in the US (and many of them publicly traded) who do have a direct incentive to lie to potential students about the benefits of purchasing a degree from their school. This is like any other consumer product - there is some room for exaggerating in the marketing campaign, but there is a line that, once crossed, is simply fraud. Many for-profit schools have the incentive to lie, and do so. If the schools are certified by a regional/national government, and are enabling their students to rack up significant debt, then the schools should certainly be held accountable for misrepresenting the benefits to their customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, things are a bit different in the UK, our universities aren't profit making organisations.

 

Of course, if the university is actually lying, that is unacceptable.  In the example given, it was more selective disclosure.  And I do think that a supposedly intelligent student deserves slightly different protections to someone that could be quite vulnerable.

 

If my brother went to that law school on the basis of one statistic, without doing other research and thinking things through, I would think he'd made a mistake and a lot of the blame should fall on him.

 

If my elderly grandmother, who is very trusting, got scammed by a boiler room fraudster, I would think that 95% of the blame should go to the fraudster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree the schools are lying.  Perhaps they are being a bit selective in their disclosure.  But at the end of the day, if you're going to university, a) Your success is mostly down to you. b) You should have the intelligence to question what you are being told.

 

A 90 year old woman, whose husband died last year who always did the finances, and may be in the early stages of dementia, needs some protection, I would say.

 

When you go to school, there is a LOT of luck involved...There are PLENTY of graduates in the USA who can NOT get jobs in their field.  I am not talking about people who barely squeaked by either...I have known people who graduated in the top quarter of their class and can not find employment outside of being a retail clerk.

 

As to schools lying, I most definitely have to disagree with you there...They NEED to get "butts in the seats" to keep the federal loan money flowing.  I am not even talking about "for profit" schools.  I am talking about "regular", "non-profit" universities.

 

For years & years, there have been 2 law school graduates for every job available.  So how can schools have 90% placement?  It is a mathematical impossibility.  Additionally, there are some schools that have a bar passage rate of 50%.  How can you work in the legal field if you don't/can't pass the bar?

 

There is also a problem with the quality of school you go to.  If there are 20k legal jobs, the top schools will place the VAST majority of their graduates, taking a lot of those positions.  Lower ranked schools will simply get a much smaller slice of the pie.

 

Harvard places 98% of their graduates in legal position.  University of Detroit places 30% of their graduates....

 

What about this?

 

Some law schools "hire" their graduates who can't find paid work...This then counts as a gainfully employed graduate!  George Washington hires about 21% of their graduates!

George Washington is NOT the only school doing this.

 

This does not strike you as being somewhat manipulative?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not going to get very far in law if you don't think laterally about what a statistic means and represents.  Don't have much sympathy for the students - they should consider it a learning experience.

 

As for the Bucket Shops, they are deliberately setting out to lie, target the ignorant and vulnerable, and misrepresent things.  Society would break down if all customers were expected to do full due diligence.  Imagine if you had to check the medical qualifications on every doctor you went to, and then medically educate yourself on their advice!

 

The Bugatti guy should go to prison, but it does surprise me that they seem to find so many victims.

come on there is an obvious difference between the two. One relies on common sense, the other one on expertise.

 

You dont have to know much, also half an hour to read if the facts check out, or going through med school to see if your doctor is capable. Huge diffence.

 

agree with above poster, they should determine wether the person was capable of having commons sense. If you are a 40 year old doctor, or you are the local mcdonalds manager, you should just be shit out of luck. But yeah I guess 95 year old grandmothers who have early signs of dementia should be protected. I guess hard to implement that in the law tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quote from the article:

 

"People just get an e-mail and they buy these things without doing any fundamental analysis... AwesomePennyStocks built a list of subscribers with keyword advertising on search engines, bidding up the price of phrases like “penny stocks” to more than $2 a click, Nicosia said. Its e-mails generated the most stock buying in the industry"

 

 

They were targeting people searching Google for "penny stocks". So, these people would search Google for "penny stocks", click on the ad, join the e-mail list, then simply buy whatever they told them to buy.

 

This isn't targeting the 90 year old widow with dementia, it is targeting people who are actively looking for a scam artist to steal their money from them.  You shouldn't prosecute someone if they are simply giving people exactly what they are looking for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this kinda shit should be taught in high school. There should be a class like 'the basics of life' or something. Where they teach you how to avoid all the basic pitfalls.

 

This type of stuff is taught in the streets, not the classroom. 

 

It doesn't have to be streets of the ghetto, but people that live only live in their bubble will get duped.  Street smarts. 

 

Edit:  That said, you are right that a 'basics of life' should be taught in the classroom. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DTEJD1997: I'm aware of all the issues with the US educational system and I'm a 35 year old Brit - I read stuff.  I'm sorry but if you go to a lower quality university on the basis of a statistic that THEY provided, you've made a mistake.  Yes, it's manipulative and wrong, but by going to university you are implicitly telling the world you are an intelligent adult that is able to think a little.  We live in a world where we are constantly bombarded with advertising and news that is skewed, biased, manipulative etc.  We all have built up protections against that.  And then you go to university based on a statistic, and then feel conned when actually 30% of people get proper jobs rather than a stated 40% (for example)?  Sympathy is lacking here.

 

rkbabang: This is a different sector of society.  Undoubtedly some bucket shops target the old and desperate.

 

yadayada: I don't really understand what your point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was nothing in that article that described an innocent victim of this guy.  If the article is correct his "victims" deserved everything they got and more.  What he did isn't even close to as bad (not even in the same ballpark) as the whole life companies or annuities companies who do cold-call grandma and get her to turn over her entire life savings.  And that is somehow legal.  Involving dumb people who search for "penny stocks" on google in a pump and dump because they searched you out and are willing to invest in anything you tell them to, doesn't seem all that bad to me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

come on there is an obvious difference between the two. One relies on common sense, the other one on expertise.

 

You dont have to know much, also half an hour to read if the facts check out, or going through med school to see if your doctor is capable. Huge diffence.

so somebody with no business and/or investing experience can figure out in 30mins if something is going to be the next big thing and if investing in the-next-big-thing is a winning investment strategy? these pump-and-dump things usually paint a picture of a turn-around or scientific breakthrough. something that's extremely hard for even a seasoned investor to spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my elderly grandmother, who is very trusting, got scammed by a boiler room fraudster, I would think that 95% of the blame should go to the fraudster.

 

Not to diminish the harm being done to the elderly by boiler room fraudsters and the like, but between;

(A) a 'grandma' being sold by a boiler room fraudster on a quick rich scheme, or

(B) a young adult being sold by a school on a scheme where if you put in several years of hard work and take on tons of loans to earn a graduate degree, you will have a x% likelihood of getting paid $x

 

I actually have much more sympathy for the young adult if the school is purposely misrepresenting the benefits of the education

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was nothing in that article that described an innocent victim of this guy.  If the article is correct his "victims" deserved everything they got and more.  What he did isn't even close to as bad (not even in the same ballpark) as the whole life companies or annuities companies who do cold-call grandma and get her to turn over her entire life savings.  And that is somehow legal.  Involving dumb people who search for "penny stocks" on google in a pump and dump because they searched you out and are willing to invest in anything you tell them to, doesn't seem all that bad to me.

 

the previous articles didn't even say how he got the money. just that he left canada and had a bugatti. do you honestly think he advertised only on "penny stocks" searches? if i was running a pump and dump i would also advertise on searches smart(high income) people use. it was just an industry comment that advertising on "penny stocks" searches got super expensive because of this guy.

 

it's like saying madoff is innocent because people didn't do their research. his investors were greedy too, but it wasn't probably the wrong greedy like in penny stocks. or that he's innocent because banks or someone else has done something similar. it's still wrong and should be punishable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...