4 ms·

Not really. Floyd can say whatever he wants to say, he just needs to warn people that they might not be able to weather the loss. Just like if I was to say that

by uxp 9y ago

Not really. Floyd can say whatever he wants to say, he just needs to warn people that they might not be able to weather the loss. Just like if I was to say that I think Apple's stock is going to soar now that they've discontinued the iPod and can focus more embedded development into the Apple Watch and TV and something something pulled out of my ass, I should also state that: All statements and expressions are the sole opinion of the commenter and are subject to change without notice. The Commenter is not liable for any investment decisions by its readers or subscribers. It is strongly recommended that any purchase or sale decision be discussed with a financial adviser, or a broker-dealer, or a member of any financial regulatory bodies. The information contained herein has been provided as an information service only. The accuracy or completeness of the information is not warranted and is only as reliable as the sources from which it was obtained. Investors are cautioned that they may lose all or a portion of their investment in this or any other company.

Jabanga 9y ago
>Floyd can say whatever he wants to say, he just needs to warn people that they might not be able to weather the loss. While I am least opposed to generic disclosure requirements (as opposed to a requirement of getting the approval of and registering with some specific regulatory authority, as is the case with getting an exemption to the prohibition on offering securities to the public) like you describe, it is still a prohibition on what Mayweather can say. The law essentially says, "you cannot say X, unless you say Y and Z". It is a prohibition on what he can say under particular conditions. That being said, I haven't fully considered the implications of disclosure requirements, and would hold it as a possibility that it can be justified, on the grounds that "saying X, without saying Y and Z" is indisputably fraud, under all circumstances (those this is a very high bar to clear, and I'm not sure that the prohibition clears it).

by uxp 9y ago

Jabanga 9y ago

>Floyd can say whatever he wants to say, he just needs to warn people that they might not be able to weather the loss. While I am least opposed to generic disclosure requirements (as opposed to a requirement of getting the approval of and registering with some specific regulatory authority, as is the case with getting an exemption to the prohibition on offering securities to the public) like you describe, it is still a prohibition on what Mayweather can say. The law essentially says, "you cannot say X, unless you say Y and Z". It is a prohibition on what he can say under particular conditions. That being said, I haven't fully considered the implications of disclosure requirements, and would hold it as a possibility that it can be justified, on the grounds that "saying X, without saying Y and Z" is indisputably fraud, under all circumstances (those this is a very high bar to clear, and I'm not sure that the prohibition clears it).