BuffaloBill Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 Some Expensive Coitus Tiger's sex life costs investors some serious coin .... glad to see that members of academia have nothing better to spend their time on.
BuffaloBud Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 Wonder when the first law suit is going to be slapped on TW for lost investment income.
Chef Jim Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 Wonder when the first law suit is going to be slapped on TW for lost investment income. That's a suit no one would win.
BuffaloBill Posted December 29, 2009 Author Posted December 29, 2009 That's a suit no one would win. Agreed .. even the authors of the study said there is a "large margin of error" in their results. The point they were trying to make was that high profile product sponsors can have negative as well as positive impact - like that is news.
Chef Jim Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 Agreed .. even the authors of the study said there is a "large margin of error" in their results. The point they were trying to make was that high profile product sponsors can have negative as well as positive impact - like that is news. There are lots of things that can have negative impacts on investing. Unless outright fraud was committed in regard to your investments you'll never win a law suit in regard to market loss. **** happens.
BuffaloBill Posted December 29, 2009 Author Posted December 29, 2009 There are lots of things that can have negative impacts on investing. Unless outright fraud was committed in regard to your investments you'll never win a law suit in regard to market loss. **** happens. No argument but I would assume the authors of the study statistically eliminated or reduced other factors as best as they could. With that said, some idiot lawyer will likey attempt a suit. Throw at a wall and sometimes you get a "go away" settlement out of it.
Chef Jim Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 No argument but I would assume the authors of the study statistically eliminated or reduced other factors as best as they could. With that said, some idiot lawyer will likey attempt a suit. Throw at a wall and sometimes you get a "go away" settlement out of it. And that is what's wrong with our legal system. And I really don't think there are any lawyers that are going to sue someone for maket loss.
BuffaloBill Posted December 29, 2009 Author Posted December 29, 2009 And that is what's wrong with our legal system. And I really don't think there are any lawyers that are going to sue someone for maket loss. However, (not my position here - just sayin) arguably this situation does not represent a market loss.
Chef Jim Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 However, (not my position here - just sayin) arguably this situation does not represent a market loss. Would you consider a stock price dropping due to the company's CEO getting arrested for drugs a market loss or a risk of investing?
BuffaloBill Posted December 29, 2009 Author Posted December 29, 2009 Would you consider a stock price dropping due to the company's CEO getting arrested for drugs a market loss or a risk of investing? If you are asking me personally I would say risk of investing.
BuffaloBill Posted December 29, 2009 Author Posted December 29, 2009 If you are asking me personally I would say risk of investing. I would also add that your scenario or the Tiger Woods one should not have lasting effect if the company is a sound investment outside this isolated issue. If anything the drug taking CEO situation may represent a buy opportunity in an otherwise sound company and in a sound market.
Chef Jim Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 If you are asking me personally I would say risk of investing. Then why is this case any different?
BuffaloBill Posted December 29, 2009 Author Posted December 29, 2009 Then why is this case any different? From my perspective it is not - perhaps the disconnect is that I said some lawyer (not me) may look at it differently in the pursuit of easy settlement money.
Chef Jim Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 From my perspective it is not - perhaps the disconnect is that I said some lawyer (not me) may look at it differently in the pursuit of easy settlement money. I'm just not sure how many lawyers would even take that type of case. And it's not easy money, you invest and there are many risks involved and it's very much buyer beware and I would hope any lawyer knows that. And if any case like that were brought up I don't think anyone in their right mind would settle. Instead they would be told to pound sand.
Recommended Posts