Replies to post #13423 on SEC Charges Eleven in Stock Manipulation Ring

[Monksdream]

This may be a bit OT. I was once employed by Raging Bull, assigned to write a daily feature the website called Herd on the Boards.

I had no idea Raging Bull went for that much dough. It also made boy millionaires out of Bill Martin and a third guy who is credited with creating the original website.

As I understand it, David Wetherwell, then the CEO of the infamous CMGI, bankrolled these guys. Lycos later bought the website.

No, that kind of money wasn't and isn't chump change.

[Newly2b]

You're probably right, Janice. It was just an impression I had. I hung out on S.I. back in the late 90's as a lurker, but I thought when S.I. was sold (to was it Infospace?), Matt left and then Bob left, too. Matt started Ihub and Bob later joined him (interesting that now Bob ends up owning S.I. which was, I believe, his first love anyway). But you are probably right and my recollection is faulty.

Newly

[gotmilk]

I would like to suggest another angle to your post as to why Matt traveled the path he did.

Posted by: janice shell "... He decided to skip college, and start IHub instead. I think he was strongly motivated by the fact that in 1998 the Dreyer brothers had sold SI for $144 million in cash and stock, and in 1999 Rusty Szurek had sold Raging Bull for about $350 million in cash and stock [and] he hoped to do the same, but the dot.com crash put an end to that."

Matt's IH success came about from his "follow the leaders" of SI and Raging Bull, a copy of the SI and RB business plans, not from what he was told and believed about himself being a "boy business genius."

Once IH obtained a size of importance thru growth to a mature and stable company, Matt the "boy business genius" remained there doing a function that did not require such a talent.

Matt the "boy business genius" needed an ACT II of greatness.

Matt did another "follow the leader," where success is measured by obtaining a big money return.

Matt understood what we all found to be true, that penny stocks are 99.999% musical-chairs, not investments into companies destined for success.

I'll suggest and guess that Matt and many of the other players in the SEC case initially traveled a path where they saw themselves as having an advantage over the population of traders into pennies, as in they had more access to pump & dump facilities.

But a line was crossed eventually, most likely knowned and planned by a few of the SEC case, causing Matt to contemplate a withdrawal from the process.

Doug