"Are we on the same page?"
Surely you jest.
Let's start with "artificially inflated".
The price is the price as determined in the marketplace. If a stock's price gets to a point where it is higher than you, the investor, believe it should be then you should sell it. But it didn't get there by itself. The perceptions, real or imaginary, that the buyers of those shares had when they bid that stock up, got the price to where it is.....there's nothing artificial about it and "inflated" is strictly in the eyes of the beholder. I HAVE NOT suggested that any information be put in the public domain that is false.
If you are comfortable telling me that "pr'ing an NDA would be foolish.", then I suppose I shouldn't be reticent to tell you that saying "Sometimes, too much information can be just as dangerous as not enough." is easily the silliest thing that I've ever heard you post. (BTW, I was proposing 8-K treatment as a material agreement...the SEC wouldn't enforce "pr'ing").
"The shareholders who get in at the high will be stuck because the price will drop right back down."
And??? How could you possibly prefer to have it any other way? What in Sam Hill (sometimes I miss Yahoo) happened to the concept of accepting the consequences of one's own actions? Those people took a risk that they found acceptable when they made their buy. Nobody tricked 'em into it.
Now let's deal with the original cause for my concern:
"It's my opinion that if two parties get together and sign an NDA and, while discussions are ongoing, one of the parties, maybe thinking the discussions are going well, decides to start buying shares in his, or the other company, that would be illegal".
Well hotdiggittydog...that's my opinion, too!!!
"It's been my experience that once you sign an NDA, if the deal falls apart, that's it. There is no signing a document that says the NDA is now null and void."
Uh-oh.
My turn for an example:
I'm sure that you've heard that Pike once had an NDA with American Dairy. This fact was revealed, perfectly legally, by the issuance of a PR by ADY, whose purpose....let there be no mistake about it.....could only have been to provide some support to its share price. (If you can think of any other reason for a company-issued PR for ANYTHING please provide it). It's pretty clear to me from your posts that you would expect some people to have bought shares based on that PR....and Pike and ADY would've obviously hoped for the same result. At that point, however, Pike would have been required to stop making open market transactions in the shares (note our above agreement on this).
Here's where the problems begin:
"It's been my experience that once you sign an NDA, if the deal falls apart, that's it. There is no signing a document that says the NDA is now null and void."
As we agreed, it would have been improper for Pike to trade after the signing of the NDA. However, based on your quote, the phrase "after the signing of the NDA" applies, as the saying goes, until the last syllable of recorded time. The common shareholder, relying on the auspices of the SEC to require his company to keep him informed, now does not know if Pike is not buying or selling because he doesn't want to or if he is not buying or selling because it's "after the signing of the NDA", which it always will be. And all I'm saying is that that's not right. Leaving the investing public uninformed as to whether there is an ongoing agreement between the parties...especially those that invested based upon it...is wrong. As it stands, the rules allow a company to attract investors with what I see as a material agreement that carries insider trading restrictions yet has no fixed terminus and I can't believe that that's just peachy with you.
"I have been involved in a lot of NDA's".
I have been involved in none (-0-), yet I don't feel that I've suffered any significant handicap in this discussion....so far, anyway. I always appreciate your opinion. Whether it helps or not. LOL.
