# Stock Discussion Sites - ASIC Regulations



## It's Snake Pliskin (21 October 2005)

RichKid said:
			
		

> Different people will construe the statement in different ways, I can only be cautious as there is a real possibility that some may take it as I suggest. This site is not for profit and we don't get any financial benefit out of it so if ASIC clamps down on us we could go down the gurgler very fast as lawyers are expensive, I'm willing to be a bit cautious to be on the correct side of the law. Having said that only a small number of posts actually come up on my radar. I hope you understand.




Richkid,

I understand fully. However, it questions the existence of this forum then.
If I say there are good buying opprtunities today, in your opinion is that giving advice? It is a grey area that no lawyer could stand in court to argue about. Is x worth buying? Again grey area because there is no price given, no future target given or no reason for wanting to buy or no disclosure of one's true financial position. So any answer short of the above would be opinion only to a general question of what might be happening in the market.

If we cannot ask general questions, then there is only a role for the general chat forum as I see it.

Maybe you should get clarification from ASIC as to what constitutes advice and have it posted on the forum. You may have it, and if you do I would like to read it. Because if it's too draconian I'm bailing out.

Regards,  
Snake


----------



## RichKid (21 October 2005)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Richkid,
> 
> I understand fully. However, it questions the existence of this forum then.
> If I say there are good buying opprtunities today, in your opinion is that giving advice? It is a grey area that no lawyer could stand in court to argue about. Is x worth buying? Again grey area because there is no price given, no future target given or no reason for wanting to buy or no disclosure of one's true financial position. So any answer short of the above would be opinion only to a general question of what might be happening in the market.
> ...




Snake,
We haven't had any issue with this before, not to the extent you cite. You'll see that only a small number of posts have been brought up by me as being subject to this issue. 

Basically the question on ZFX was about whether a particular person should buy a particular stock, that's specific enough for me. Your example is very general. Both are on a continuum but at different ends. If you feel uncomfortable distinguishing between the two that is a matter for you and I'm happy to let you decide where you prefer to post and how. If I'm being too obtuse, in your view, get in touch with Joe and we'll try to come up with clearer guidelines, I'm happy to stand corrected, there is no benefit for me in pretending to be correct if I've over-reacted. 

Importantly, these forums do not exist to provide specific buying or selling recommendations. 

Maybe an ASIC guideline for web forums may be good, perhaps with examples- I'm glad you raised that point. I'll see if Joe can approach them.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (21 October 2005)

> Your example is very general. Both are on a continuum but at different ends. If you feel uncomfortable distinguishing between the two that is a matter for you and I'm happy to let you decide where you prefer to post and how.




Richkid,

I am not trying to sound intelligent or cause a problem, and I am not a uranium scientist, but could you explain that in plain English? I really don't understand it. My examples were intended to be general.



> If I'm being too obtuse, in your view, get in touch with Joe and we'll try to come up with clearer guidelines, I'm happy to stand corrected, there is no benefit for me in pretending to be correct if I've over-reacted.




ASIC guidlines would suffice. And you are not being obtuse, just defensive. But that's human nature so I'll forgive you.



> Importantly, these forums do not exist to provide specific buying or selling recommendations.




You have my agreeance here. But general opinions on prices etc are allowed. Right? Again it's all in the wording of questions and I feel you have done the right thing in notifying a newcomer as to what is expected, though I didn't see it as advice and that's why I have had my say.

If you could chase that ASIC ruling up it would be most appreciated and beneficial for the forum.

Kind Regards
Snake Pliskin


----------



## Joe Blow (21 October 2005)

RK and Snake... I am in agreeance with you both that we need further clarification on this issue for the benefit of the forum as a whole.

I will do some research over the weekend and start a thread on the topic early next week that will outline ASIC policy on internet discussion sites, the postion of ASF and the responsibilities of posters and site management.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (21 October 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> RK and Snake... I am in agreeance with you both that we need further clarification on this issue for the benefit of the forum as a whole.
> 
> I will do some research over the weekend and start a thread on the topic early next week that will outline ASIC policy on internet discussion sites, the postion of ASF and the responsibilities of posters and site management.




Joe,

Thanks.
Snake


----------



## michael_selway (21 October 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> RK and Snake... I am in agreeance with you both that we need further clarification on this issue for the benefit of the forum as a whole.
> 
> I will do some research over the weekend and start a thread on the topic early next week that will outline ASIC policy on internet discussion sites, the postion of ASF and the responsibilities of posters and site management.




Hi guys thanks

yes sry, will be much more cautious in what i post

MS


----------



## doctorj (23 October 2005)

Been digging through the ASIC website and located the attached document that seems to outline their current doctrine when dealing with forums such as ASF.  If I were Joe, I would consider placing the suggested warnings as per the document.

The bits that those of us who post on this forum should be concerned with lie in IPS 162.42 (note that an IDS is an Internet Discussion Site)


> (a) you are personally responsible for your postings (including any
> alterations you make to postings). *Therefore, you should not
> include any misleading or deceptive information in your postings*
> and not carry out illegal or unauthorised activities using the IDS.
> ...




For me, the key phrase in all this is 'misleading or deceptive conduct'.

Misleading and Deceptive conduct is defined in case law by _Weitmann v Katies Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 336 at p 343; (1977) ATPR paragraph 40-041 at p 17,444_ where Franki J resorted to the Oxford Dictionary definition (to cause to believe what is false; to mislead as to a matter of fact, to lead into error, to impose upon, delude, take in).

The use of the words "likely to mislead or deceive" means that it is unnecessary to prove that the conduct actually did mislead or deceive (_ASC v Nomura International PLC_)
Error or an erroneous assumption on the part of consumers will not, of itself, prove contravention.  In order to show that conduct is misleading or deceptive, it must be shown that it has been the cause of the error or is likely to cause error
Conduct which merely causes some uncertainty in the mids of relevant members of the public does not infringe
Contravention may be proved without there being knowledge or intention on the part of the defendant (ie. intent is irrelevant) (_Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Pty Ltd_

All this begs the question, what exactly can we post?  The policy statement is very clear on what it requires Joe to do in order to discharge his responsibility in ensuring people are aware of the conditions in viewing and posting.  It seems deliberately ambigious on the poster's obligations.  The inclusion of the reference to misleading and deceptive conduct, in my armchair opinion suggests that we could individually held liable for any loss proven to be incurred by something we post that is inaccurate - through typographical error, gaps in understanding, incomplete analysis or simply subjective opinion.

This doesn't seem limited to opinions on buy/sell/hold on specific stocks either.  It extends to investment strategies, risk management etc.  It's a scary world we live in.  Didn't I recently mention in another thread how much I hated the FSRA??!  I'd be interested in other's opinions on this.

(The definitions of misleading and deceptive, along with associated notes were taken from 'Australian Business Law', 20th Ed. by P. Latimer as published by CCH Australia Ltd)


----------



## krisbarry (23 October 2005)

At the end of the day, when you walk into a newsagent and pick up all the share mags each month they sell/advertise/spruke/inform/persuade/promote/ etc etc etc.

So what is the problem with doing the same on boards such as this?


What is ramping?

Who defines ramping?

Why is this ramping and something else is not?

When is ramping justified?

Is down ramping just as bad as ramping?

Is there such a thing a ramping?

Why is it OK for professionals to ramp for a living and get paid for it, plus recieve comissions, but when lay people ramp it is frowned upon?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 October 2005)

doctorj said:
			
		

> Been digging through the ASIC website and located the attached document that seems to outline their current doctrine when dealing with forums such as ASF.  If I were Joe, I would consider placing the suggested warnings as per the document.
> 
> The bits that those of us who post on this forum should be concerned with lie in IPS 162.42 (note that an IDS is an Internet Discussion Site)
> 
> ...





Thanks for the info.

I think I'll need to consider my future on forums. The above content is draconian and I may from hereon consider bailing out and limiting myself to general chat. It is all a problem too complex to deal with in my opinion. 

Aussie Stock Forums is not the issue, it's the law that's made it not worthwhile.

Snake.


----------



## doctorj (23 October 2005)

After reading that, I would suggest that ramping isn't ramping if you can provide factual basis for your opinions and these facts are all correct and there is a logical and correct process by which you started with the facts to arrive at your conclusion.



> Who defines ramping?



ASIC and ultimately a court.

I'm not having a shot at anyone or anything.  I was just trying to save Joe from some research by getting him started.  I agree that its a waste of time and it needs to be the duty of the individual to assess each post on its merits before doing their own substantiative research before coming to their own conclusions.  A post should be viewed as someone sharing the results of their research and encouraging others to look into it.  It should not, under any circumstance be considered by law as something someone can act on and then hold accountable should loss result.  We've all got brains between our ears, the law shouldn't protect the lazy among us that elect not to use theirs.


----------



## krisbarry (23 October 2005)

Here is an example...late last year VLL was a broker recommendation, and was also promoted in a couple of share mags etc.  Good stock to buy, plenty of potential etc etc etc...RAMPING IMO!

But if I was to do the same and ramp it till the cows came home I would be warned, put down, called a ramper and possibly be banned from sites such as this.

So its OK for the professionals to RAMP IT/PLUG IT etc

But all along the share price was sitting at around the $2.40 mark, while the ramping took a hold, in the media.

Then what happens....3 profit down-grades and the share price falls to a really filthy level of 30ish cents.

Ummm am I missing somtheing here?

Can someone please explain why some can ramp and others not?


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2005)

The various Real Estate Institutes are amongst the more blatant professional rampers.

"House prices never go down" until "we've reached the bottom". No matter what the market is doing or is likely to do, they will be sure to tell you that it's booming or about to be. They even claim to be able to foresee what the RBA will be doing in future.


----------



## dutchie (23 October 2005)

Rich

I think you need to put these comments into a new thread on what you can or can't say on the forum.

I have not investigated any legal or ASIC rulings on what can or can't be said on a forum.

 It would appear that the onus is on the poster (and the person running the forum) not to have any content in the post that might be construed,  by a person reading it, to be advice.

The problem I see is that no matter what information Joe gets from ASIC et al and whatever the definitions are that specify what can be said and what cannot, it will always be open to (expensive) legal interpretation.

To many people, legal definitions, rulings etc are all mumbo jumbo and leaves them no wiser as to what they can or can't say.

Even if a definition or ruling seems to be black and white to one person it is always possible for another person (in our present legal system) to say the opposite and take the matter to the Courts to decide who is right!

This involves emotional and financial stress to both parties irrespective of the final result.

So what is the bottom line? 

The bottom line is that no matter what the definitions or rulings etc that Joe (or anyone else) may state in warnings, rules of conduct, rules of what can and what can't be said etc., they can still be challenged and taken to Court for interpretation.   

E.g. I make, what I think, is a valid (legal) comment in a post on a certain stock. Someone interprets this as advice to go and buy the stock. They lose money. They sue me for damages because of what I said. Irrespective of the end result I have to spend time, money and have emotional stress defending myself on what I initially thought was an innocent post.

Pretty scary stuff!

So long as the onus remains on the poster not to say anything that may be misconstrued as advice and not on individuals reading the post not to take it as advice there is always the chance that the poster could be taken to Court.

This happens in other parts of the Law as well (Antidiscrimination Law etc).


----------



## Joe Blow (23 October 2005)

I have split the preceeding posts off from the ZFX thread. They deal with the issue of what can and cannot be said on stock discussion websites. I think it is a useful discussion to have and everyone should be aware of the ASIC regulations that deal with this area.

I will be starting another thread dealing with this topic in the next few days to clarify things further with regards to posting on ASF.


----------



## happytrader (23 October 2005)

Hi there Joe

I would like to please ask that you remove any of my posts that contravene Asic law. If indeed I have done so, I humbly apologise. I do not wish to be a target for someone on the make and some loser looking for someone else to blame for their lack of insight and laziness in thought and action. Thankyou all for allowing me the pleasure of your company.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## tarnor (23 October 2005)

> if you own or have some other interest in a security, or you have
> any connection with a securities issuer that you might benefit from,
> you must disclose that fact.




I used to do this alot  but felt a bit goofy saying that i held at the end of every post, and then what if your out for a small retrace.. It is a good idea though..

I think a solid disclaimer in your sig is a good way to take the heat off the influence of your posts

I've got no problem with rampers who are overly enthusiastic, "shes about to blow" etc  but when they make up false information.. or allude to having some sort of inside knowledge i think its gone to far...

Honestly though comparing asf to some other forums thiers is no comparison, if asic was going to clean up things you would think asf would be one of the last on a long list.. Those guidelines are pretty strict though :/


----------



## Joe Blow (23 October 2005)

tarnor said:
			
		

> Honestly though comparing asf to some other forums thiers is no comparison, if asic was going to clean up things you would think asf would be one of the last on a long list.. Those guidelines are pretty strict though :/




Thanks for your kind words tarnor.

I have aimed for a high standard and I plan to maintain that standard.

With regards to ASIC regulations of internet discussion sites, I am ensuring that ASF is in full compliance. I think Aussie Stock Forums has turned into a great site and I do not see much evidence of 'deceptive or misleading conduct' here.


----------



## Dan_ (23 October 2005)

Joe,

As a thought is it possible to put a large disclaimer on ASF with something to the following effect (I have no legal background)

_The information provided in the following forums are compiled form various sources and as a result are not financial advice, do necessarily represent the views and opinions of the site owner and/or it members, do not endorse, recommend or validate any of the information presented, linked or referred to.

By continuing to view this site you agree to indemnify any of it's owners/members of any legal action that may result due to personal loss obtained by following any of the contained or referenced material. 

Always ensure you have parental supervision when viewing ASF, keep the posts pointed away from your face at all times. Do not throw deleted messages into a fire as they may explode, always remember coffee is hot, if you read something you don’t like flush eyes with cold water for 10 mins, caution slippery when wet ....blah blah blah_  

If something like this is needed you could possibly have a 1 page disclaimer that appears before viewing the forums. Members who chose the "remember me" option will only ever have to click this once where as non members will have to accept it each visit?

Just a thought to help out ASF. You could always advise the kind of costs associated with such a legal statement being done. I'll happily donate a few $ to help out.

Or claim the whose lost as free speech? would this make things easier?

Is it just me or does it all get to hard (liability wise) to do anything lately?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 October 2005)

Hi Joe,

This has been an issue that I have been thinking about for some time. 

I would like a written assurance from ASF that my posts comply with ASIC regulations, and if they don't I would like them to be removed. 

The law is only law when it is convenient for people with power. I have no desire wasting time defending myself because someone has a different opinion to me, more money and an agenda.

Please take your time and if you have any questions please ask.

Regards
Snake


----------



## kaveman (23 October 2005)

Remember the regtulations came into being because of flagrant ramping on forums, to protect the idiots who take things written as gospel.
I think it comes down to making a firm decision to protect yourself. These days I never talk about specific stocks, never even read them on forums. But then this is also a matter of not having time to bother with the threads.
I follow a simple guide "Talk about how to trade, not what to trade"


----------



## doctorj (23 October 2005)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> I would like a written assurance from ASF that my posts comply with ASIC regulations, and if they don't I would like them to be removed.




You are responsible for what you post.  If you want assurance that your posts are compliant with the Corporations Act, the FSRA and IPS 162 you will need to consult a lawyer that specialises in the field and request they audit your posts.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 October 2005)

As DoctorJ pointed out, it is misleading or deceptive conduct that may cause you legal problems.

If you suggest a stock (like magazines do etc.) and say why you think it is a good buy and provide evidence of why you think it is a good buy, then there is no problem. 

If you pretend to have inside knowledge, pretend to be a professional advisor or lie about figures then you are breaking the law. 

I belong to another site that operates this way and it is quite successful.

I do not consider a reasoned argument "ramping".


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 October 2005)

doctorj said:
			
		

> You are responsible for what you post.  If you want assurance that your posts are compliant with the Corporations Act, the FSRA and IPS 162 you will need to consult a lawyer that specialises in the field and request they audit your posts.




I have no need to do that, as I am sure they are compliant.

But thanks for the advice.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (23 October 2005)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> As DoctorJ pointed out, it is misleading or deceptive conduct that may cause you legal problems.
> 
> If you suggest a stock (like magazines do etc.) and say why you think it is a good buy and provide evidence of why you think it is a good buy, then there is no problem.
> 
> ...




What is that site's name?

Generally I like Joes operating of the forum.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2005)

I don't intend this comment as a political one as such, but I firmly believe that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer could find themselves in _very_ serious trouble over their investment advice. 

1. The Prime Minister has made public comments clearly intended as meaning that interest rates will remain low whilst this government remains in office. This constitutes investment advice since it would, at the very least, influence a consumer's decision as to fixed interest rate loans versus variable. 

2. The Prime Minister has publicly stated that the markets WILL sort out the high oil prices and bring petrol prices back down. The price of oil was around $1 per litre at the time of this statement. This constitutes financial advice to the extent that it has discouraged people from investing in oil company stocks, pursuing alternative fuels or more economical cars etc. If you missed the run up in oil stocks then you may have a case against the PM. 

3.  The Treasurer has stated that Australia has a low inflation economy and that low inflation is not a temporary situation. Should inflation rise and you lose money as a result, you would seem to have a case against the Treasurer. 

4. The Treasurer has also in the past (not this time) stated that the stock market correction earlier this year was only a temporary setback. This clearly constitutes investment advice. Had the market crashed, there would be an obvious case against the Treasurer.

As I said, this is not intended as a political posting. But when two people in authority are making such statements very publicly whilst we are worried about what we can post on an anonymous forum then quite clearly there is an order of magnitude difference in the scale of influence on the public. So if anyone here has anything to worry about then it pales into insignificance compared to the potential charges against the Prime Minister and Treasurer.


----------



## Happy (23 October 2005)

Joe you could extend life of Edit button, so posters can fiddle with their posts to comply with regulations.

I could use clemency to change my October Tip, definitely September and possibly November


----------



## Joe Blow (24 October 2005)

Happy said:
			
		

> Joe you could extend life of Edit button, so posters can fiddle with their posts to comply with regulations.
> 
> I could use clemency to change my October Tip, definitely September and possibly November




Happy, 

I am reluctant to change the current time limit from 20 minutes as much mischief could be wrought if I disabled it. If enough people begged me I may consider an extension to 30 mins... but there would need to be a lot of begging and pleading in order for me to change my policy.

However, any poster wishing to modify a post can always private message me and I will always be happy to help... unless you want me to change your entry for the stock tipping competition, of course!


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> Happy,
> 
> I am reluctant to change the current time limit from 20 minutes as much mischief could be wrought if I disabled it. If enough people begged me I may consider an extension to 30 mins... but there would need to be a lot of begging and pleading in order for me to change my policy.




Joe, I agree.

I don't see much difference between 20 and 30 minutes. It's fine as it is.

Any innappropriate posts can aways be edited by you or one of the mods.

What I think we need is some clear language as to what is and isn't kosher. And a statement that makes it clear that we should err on the side of caution, should anything be in a grey area.

Cheers


----------



## Yippyio (24 October 2005)

Hi Joe,

A simple solution to this is for people to agree to a disclaimer when they are becoming new members of the site and for all existing members to also submit their agreement that;

Draft -

NONE OF THE POSTS ON THIS SITE ARE TO BE TAKEN AS FINANCIAL ADVICE. THIS SITE IS A FORUM NOT AN ADVICE SERVICE - AGREE/ DISAGREE

If they disagree then they should seek financial advice from the appropriate source and not be allowed access to ASF.


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2005)

Yippyio said:
			
		

> Hi Joe,
> 
> A simple solution to this is for people to agree to a disclaimer when they are becoming new members of the site and for all existing members to also submit their agreement that;
> 
> ...





I noticed a couple of other sites have done similar. Joe, it's not a bad idea.

Here's an example that is the home page of one site, you have to click "I agree" before you can get in:



> By remaining here,   YOU acknowledge that...
> This Website & Room is for educational information and exchange of trading ideas only.
> Nothing mentioned by voice, chart, or in text chat is to be taken as trading advice. Trades taken here are strictly at your own risk. You should consult your broker or financial advisor before placing any trade !
> Our ZERO-Tolerance Policy
> ...


----------



## Joe Blow (24 October 2005)

Thanks for all the information and feedback everyone.

Rest assured that I am working on all this now and will be starting a thread in the next couple of days clarifying everything.


----------



## Profitseeker (24 October 2005)

I think all these regulations are getting out of hand. If people are stupid enough to trade off information that they read from others then they deserve what they get which probably won't be much. It seems crazy that someone would invest their money with out doing their own research. There is a big difference between offering an opinion and a blatant ramp.  :swear:


----------



## sam76 (12 September 2007)

In a move that could set a nasty precedent for Australian website operators and their users, a software firm is suing a community website over comments published on its message board.

The firm, 2Clix, is suing the owner of the popular broadband community site Whirlpool, Simon Wright, for "injurious falsehood", asking for $150,000 in damages and an injunction requiring Whirlpool to remove forum threads highly critical of 2Clix's accounting software.

Dale Clapperton, chairman of the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said 2Clix was using the law to silence its critics.

He said if Wright lost "it might mean the end of criticising companies' products and services online", as "any company will be able to demand that people's criticisms of them be deleted off websites, and if they don't comply they'll sue".

Amanda Stickley, a senior law lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology, said if 2Clix won there would be severe consequences for website operators as they would have to be "very vigilant in checking material on the website and remove anything that could cause injury to someone's business reputation".

In a statement of claim filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, 2Clix said the comments, published in two threads between between late last year and July this year, led it to sustain "a severe downturn in monthly sales".

It specifically referenced more than 30 comments by Whirlpool users, many strongly advising people to avoid the software at all costs and complaining that advertised features were not actually available in the product.

One of the comments cited by 2Clix read: "The software became such a problem that we threw it out recently ... We stuck with it for over two years but in the end the many hundreds of lost hours of work and high stress levels was not worth it."

2Clix claimed the statements were both false and malicious, and said it contacted Whirlpool about the matter this year but Whirlpool refused to take the forum threads down.

Wright did not respond to requests for comment, while a 2Clix spokesman this morning declined to comment.

But Stickley said it would be very difficult for 2Clix to successfully sue Wright for injurious falsehood over comments made by Whirlpool users.

It would have to prove the statements were false, that they were made in malice, that 2Clix actually suffered damage in the form of monetary loss and, critically, that Wright had intended to cause 2Clix monetary loss by allowing the material to remain on the website.

"I don't think you could actually prove that for a web operator, that they personally intended the damage because of their malicious intention, especially when it's posted by a third party that they've got no relationship to," Stickley said.

But Whirlpool isn't taking any chances, asking its users in a statement published on the website to "refrain from doing anything that might expose Simon to contempt of court such as making statements that prejudge the outcome of the case".

The statement said Whirlpool, which has more than 180,000 registered users, believed the case was without merit and that it would "defend the matter vigorously, despite being a community website with little resources".

Whirlpool users have already begun donating money to the site to help Wright cover any legal costs. Some claim to have donated more than $1000 through Paypal.


----------



## mullokintyre (1 November 2021)

From Todays OZ



> An ASIC report from 2018 estimated the annual direct impact of illegal phoenix activity to be between $2.9bn and $5.1bn.
> The report estimated that the cost to business from unpaid trade creditors was between $1.2bn and $3.2bn. The cost to employees through unpaid entitlements was between $31m and $298m and the cost to the government in the form of unpaid taxes and compliance costs was about $1.7bn.



This is of particular interest to me personally, as I got done over on a non payment of a contract years ago by a Phoenix organisation.
Now, thanks to a new initiative under the corporations act, it will make it a little harder (but still not impossible) to  undertake phoenixing.
Its just a pity it has taken so long for such a register to exist.


> New company directors appointed from Monday will have 28 days to sign up for a new lifelong identification number or face penalties under a federal regulatory overhaul aimed at preventing unlawful practices such as phoenixing.
> Australia’s existing 2.7 million company directors will have until November next year to comply with the new ID requirements, which come into effect from this month, or face fines or even criminal penalties. From April next year, any new appointee to a board made under the Corporations Act will need to get their unique 15-digit number before they start their roles, under new rules that form part of the Commonwealth’s Modernising Business Registers (MBR) program.
> 
> The director IDs will allow regulators to track the activities of individual directors through various government databases and trace their relationship to other directors and companies.
> ...



Perhaps as a side benefit, we as investors can keep track of the directors involved in some ordinarily manged companies and see where they  might screw up next.
Mick


----------



## Belli (4 April 2022)

A good a place as any to post this link.






						22-054MR ASIC issues information for social media influencers and licensees  | ASIC
					






					asic.gov.au
				




While I very much doubt anything I have posted in the past would actually influence anyone or ASIC would come after me being a nobody, the legal requirements are very broad reaching.  The nuances involved are the unknown.

As a result, I shall now go dark where shares and investing are involved.

Farewell and thanks to @Joe Blow for hosting this site.


----------



## Joe Blow (4 April 2022)

Belli said:


> A good a place as any to post this link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think you may be jumping the gun a little. While I am still processing the implications of what ASIC have said, I don't think they are targetting ordinary people chatting about stocks on the internet, but social media personalities looking to make a buck out of their followers through arrangements with financial services companies.


----------



## Belli (4 April 2022)

Joe Blow said:


> I think you may be jumping the gun a little. While I am still processing the implications of what ASIC have said, I don't think they are targetting ordinary people chatting about stocks on the internet, but social media personalities looking to make a buck out of their followers through arrangements with financial services companies.




That is one thought.  However, I've had a few discussions and the first issue is ASIC has not defined the word 'influencer."  Hence, until that occurs, it is as broad as can it can be.

So if comparing STW v A200, both of which are financial products, and someone invests in one on the basis of the post, it can fall under a definition of influencing.  I know it is drawing a long-bow but that is the problem.  ASIC has left it very, very wide open and it gives it flexibility on these matters.


----------



## Joe Blow (4 April 2022)

Belli said:


> That is one thought.  However, I've had a few discussions and the first issue is ASIC has not defined the word 'influencer."  Hence, until that occurs, it is as broad as can it can be.
> 
> So if comparing STW v A200, both of which are financial products, and someone invests in one on the basis of the post, it can fall under a definition of influencing.  I know it is drawing a long-bow but that is the problem.  ASIC has left it very, very wide open and it gives it flexibility on these matters.




Fair enough, but I think that genie is already out of the bottle. People have been discussing stocks online for over 20 years and I don't think that is likely to change. Rampers are more likely to come to the attention of ASIC than someone presenting a sober analysis of STW v A200. This recent article in the AFR said that ASIC has been monitoring "a handful of popular personal finance influencers". Sounds like very specific people are being targetted and have already been contacted by the regulator.

If ASIC are targetting forums then I am sure they will say so in due course.


----------



## Belli (4 April 2022)

Yeah, I know @Joe Blow.  Saying this share is better than that without holding the appropriate licence is actually crossing the line and it has been that way for yonks as the law surrounding financial advice hasn't changed for years.  It's ASIC now saying it will apply the law more strictly.  How far it goes is yet to be seen.


----------



## UMike (4 April 2022)

Pretty sure there would have to be some sort of evidence that you "profited" from that "advise".

This site is pretty grounded so we are safe.


----------



## Ann (4 April 2022)

We aren't the influencers, we are the cannon fodder!


----------



## divs4ever (4 April 2022)

Ann said:


> We aren't the influencers, we are the cannon fodder!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes but the 'cannon fodder'  can still  get hurt by the sheriff's shotgun 

 and if we take the Wallstreetbets saga , a couple of correct guesses ( picks ) could make you influential 

 the part that made me uneasy  was the broad definition of 'gain'  does clicks' ( ad revenue ) or offering a subscription service after a hot streak  count  ( similar to say the Moltey Fool )

 another example in the US are those that mimic Nancy Pelosi's share moves  ( that would count  IF she bought and others followed but Nancy sold down in the rally that followed  , as the followers boosted that rally )


----------



## Ann (4 April 2022)

divs4ever said:


> and if we take the Wallstreetbets saga , a couple of correct guesses ( picks ) could make you influential





I think there is a big difference between influences like big fluffy pussy or whatever the guy's name was ( I will not post his other name) and people like us who are commenting on stocks. Most of us generally end up saying "I could be wrong, DYOR, or some such disclosure. Clearly, that is the ethical thing to do even if you know in your gut that the stock on which you are commenting is going to fly.

Some might say people like @peter2 could be seen as an influencer but I see Peter's contributions more like a 'how to' than 'this is what to buy'.  Sharing how to create wealth for yourself should _never _be seen as an_ influencer _but simply as a generous soul who wants to see others grow in knowledge and wealth. If that gets him into trouble then I will be the first to contribute to his legal expenses.

Now as this is totally off topic I will not be posting further on this subject.


----------



## Belli (4 April 2022)

UMike said:


> Pretty sure there would have to be some sort of evidence that you "profited" from that "advise".
> 
> This site is pretty grounded so we are safe.




Sorry but that is not how ASIC is approaching it.  Making a dollar out of it is secondary.






						Discussing financial products and services online  | ASIC
					






					asic.gov.au
				




Financial product advice​
_The law: _Financial product advice is a recommendation or statement of opinion which is intended to influence, or which could reasonably be regarded as being intended to influence, a person making a decision in relation to financial products.

You can share factual information that describes the features or terms and conditions of a financial product (or a class of financial products) without giving financial product advice. However, if you present factual information in a way that conveys a recommendation that someone should (or should not) invest in that product or class of products, you could breach the law by providing unlicensed financial product advice.

If you’re an influencer who receives benefits or payment for your comments in relation to financial products, you're more likely to be providing financial product advice because it indicates an intention to influence the audience.

As an aside apparently ASIC called in a number of bloogers, etc late last month for a private briefing and basically said shut down of get an AFSL.


----------



## Ann (4 April 2022)

Belli said:


> As an aside apparently ASIC called in a number of bloogers, etc late last month for a private briefing and basically said shut down of get an AFSL.



Well there you go @Joe Blow was not called in so meh, we are not classed as influences, and am I not surprised?!


----------



## peter2 (4 April 2022)

@Belli  is quite correct. The ASIC definitions of advice are extremely broad and can be applied to most forum posts that mention a specific stock or even a comment on shares/ETFs in general. Even an educational journal could be considered by ASIC as an influence to buy or sell a financial product.

No doubt ASIC is targeting the most visible evidence of unlicensed financial advice on social media. Much of which is misleading, incorrect and should to be stopped.

It's very likely that ASIC will stop there. We'll see what happens.


----------



## Belli (4 April 2022)

peter2 said:


> No doubt ASIC is targeting the most visible evidence of unlicensed financial advice on social media. Much of which is misleading, incorrect and should to be stopped.
> 
> It's very likely that ASIC will stop there. We'll see what happens.




That's what my thinking (hope) is.  And yet there will still be that very broad approach available to ASIC.  In a technical sense you cannot even say if someone should or should not invest in shares as that can be viewed as provision of financial advice.

It's a heavy handed attitude as a result of a few ratbags.  Mind you chat about property or crypto to your heart's content as they are not financial products.


----------



## frugal.rock (5 April 2022)

ASIC
Their biggest insider trading case was a few years ago, $7 million, by a cheeky greedy kid.

Surely this is only the tip of a filthy big iceberg by many players in many circles. 

I'm not sure ASIC have the teeth to deal with the iceberg.
Too many fat cat protection rackets potentially going on?

Just like influencers, Finfluencers are out for themselves. 
ASIC  chasing them is a bit like a kid with a magnifying glass chasing ants. 
Also reminds me of "Wack-a-Mole"









						The Accomplice
					

Behind the scenes of how police cracked Australia's largest insider trading case.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2022)

The world's gone crazy in my opinion.

I mean seriously, we're at the point of protecting people from "influencers" giving advice online?

Surely it should simply be sufficient to state that "I'm not a licensed financial advisor" or words to that effect and leave it for readers to form their own opinion.

Heck I knew as a fairly young kid, primary school age, that anyone selling anything was biased and would always say it was a good deal regardless of the truth. Just as I knew that actors in movies don't really punch or shoot anyone and so on. Doesn't everyone know this stuff?

Meanwhile I note that, among other things:

Newspapers continue to publish statements about financial issues "not being a concern" or "being wrong" and so on which most certainly could be interpreted as giving advice. They said inflation wasn't going to happen less than two years ago - anyone who acted on that has lost money almost certainly.

Politicians make incorrect or highly misleading statements about financial matters. If you're the actual Minister for something, and you comment that the price isn't going up, then is that not financial advice? Even worse would be if you said it then the price actually went up 70% over the next two weeks.....  

All this fuss from ASIC seems akin to worrying about someone who's overstaying a 2 hour parking limit meanwhile turning a blind eye to the armed robbery going on just down the road.


----------



## divs4ever (5 April 2022)

Musk Sends Twitter Vaulting On Big Volume









						Musk Sends Twitter Vaulting On Big Volume | Investing.com
					

Stocks Analysis by Tim Knight covering: Tesla Inc, Twitter Inc, Phunware Inc, Digital World Acquisition Corp. Read Tim Knight's latest article on Investing.com




					www.investing.com
				




 i am fairly sure the BIG influencers   don't use their talents at ASF  , but that is just a guess


----------



## Belli (5 April 2022)

No names, no pack drill, however..............

*The Caps Lock Crusader – *The Caps Lock Crusader can come in many forms. However, the best Caps Lock Crusaders know that the unadulterated caps lockery is essential to hammer home the ever-important point you are trying to make. Consistency nor discretion are tools of their trade.

_“oi Jetstar i BOOKED my ticket 2 WEEKS ago and yous still haven’t sent out an itinerary, NOT HAPPY!!!!”_

Note how you wouldn’t have understood the sentiment unless it was punctuated like a type-writer with tourettes?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2022)

This thread is one of the most amusing on ASF. 

EYG.

gg


----------



## Iron Triangle (5 April 2022)

A few youtubers i follow that post videos on stocks regulary offer side deals as part of the blog i.e pay me $1 a day and get access to my stock picks, play $5 a day to access the private chat room  , whats app me for special content , blah blah . Clearly these blokes are not qualified financial advisers and are using the social media platforms to play wanna be stock broking and think they know more about finance than Goldman sachs. ASIC will target these types i'd say. Some are very convincing more so than others.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2022)

Afore youse all get carried away. 

The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. 

ASIC would be one of the biggest mobs of losers and no hopers on the government payroll. 

I wouldn't trust any of them to go down to my local convenience store to buy me a packet of smokes and bring back the correct change. 

EYG ERABYT 

gg


----------



## wayneL (5 April 2022)

If we take this all to its most ludicrous extreme we can say goodbye to the financial pages of every newspaper and probably goodbye to The Financial Review.

Can you go see that happening, I can't.

Like everything, I think it is been left purposely nebulous so they can victimise some financial "educator"  flogging financial courses for $5,000 and want to take out, but I don't think we plebeians who are here pontificating about PE of BHP need worry.

FWIW


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2022)

wayneL said:


> If we take this all to its most ludicrous extreme we can say goodbye to the financial pages of every newspaper and probably goodbye to The Financial Review.
> 
> Can you go see that happening, I can't.
> 
> ...



FWIW !!

Please explain. 

EYG and ERABYT

gg


----------



## basilio (5 April 2022)

My guess is that ASIC is concerned at the widespread promotion of Crypto Currency  and associated scams amongst younger people by the latest gaggle of Media Influencers.  This is where the big money is currently flowing.

On balance most people on ASF won't be following Instagram and You Tube favourites who have gained huge followings. In that context clever financial promoters will get into the ear and pocket of these opinion makers/leaders  with a view to capturing some percentage of their followers.

ASIC's brief is to ensure that financial advice is honest, evidence based and  not simply a creative litany intended to enrich a promoter. So yes I think they should be having a close look at many of these people.

And I don't believe ASF is in any sort of trouble. It is too *well* regulated  (perhaps other forums  though ? )


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2022)

basilio said:


> My guess is that ASIC is concerned at the widespread promotion of Crypto Currency  and associated scams amongst younger people by the latest gaggle of Media Influencers.  This is where the big money is currently flowing.
> 
> On balance most people on ASF won't be following Instagram and You Tube favourites who have gained huge followings. In that context clever financial promoters will get into the ear and pocket of these opinion makers/leaders  with a view to capturing some percentage of their followers.
> 
> ...



ASIC, quite aside from it's lack of assets does not fare well judicially when it catches up with miscreants. 

The Law in relation to financial scams and mis-steps is an ass. 

It takes too long to prosecute people and there are many loop holes that a clever legal team can use to slip some very slippery characters through. 

Unless it is equipped with the powers of a Corruption Inquiry, a Star Chamber or the more grisly aspects of Sharia Law, nothing will change. 

A few years in the Cooma Hilton is not sufficient. 

gg


----------

