InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,477.90
(
0.16%
)
US TECH 100
19,129.60
(
-0.24%
)
Dow Jones
39,127.80
(
0.04%
)
Brent Oil
84.20
(
-0.33%
)
Bitcoin
60,999.95
(
0.31%
)
Post# of 1306
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Jayman5000

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 32
Posts 3452
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 07/30/2015

Jayman5000

Member Level

Re: nodummy post# 760

Thursday, 06/14/2018 9:45:17 AM

Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:45:17 AM

Post# of 1306
I see that the SEC example used specifically relates to fraudsters. Are there any examples of the SEC using the term hijack to refer to a Custodianship/Reinstatement that was was done legitimately, fully aboveboard and totally by the book?

If so, then I will accept the use of the term in that manner.

Otherwise, it is my opinion that the term is being broadly thrown around in a sensationalist manner attempting to lump all all of them under a shadow of illegitimacy just because one doesn't like that they happen and wishes they didn't.

I understand the frustration with the possibility of shady stuff that can occur with a reinstated shell, but that stuff can also quite well happen with a shell bought straight-up, can't it?

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up