Stock Discussion Sites - ASIC Regulations

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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".

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.

Click to expand...

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

But thanks for the advice.

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.

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".

Click to expand...

What is that site's name?

Generally I like Joes operating of the forum.

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.

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 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

Click to expand...

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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;

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.

Click to expand...

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
- Absolutely NO Soliciting, Sexual Dialog, or Political / Religious Chatter in this Room !
It is further acknowledged that this website & room is comprised of traders, and students of trading, from all walks of life, both professional and non-professional. The opinions expressed in this website & room are those of the individual moderator or poster stating such opinions by voice, chart, or text, and are not to be construed as made or endorsed by any moderators or other club members.
This is a club made up of individual members. This is not a professional organization. XXXXXX opened this website & room to all who were interested, but is not responsible for the content or action of individuals members. Though there are members who are professional traders and brokers who may trade accounts on behalf of others, the club neither endorses nor profits from these associations.
New members acknowledge they will not ask questions for the first two weeks in the chat room, and further acknowledge they have read through the materials at XXXXXXXXXX. Further, all chart questions will be held until after regular trading hours. Questions are not allowed to be asked of traders who are in a trade. We appreciate members posting their trades while providing reasons and we do not want to lose those members because they are inundated with questions. Inappropriate behavior of any kind should be reported to a moderator. Moderators are giving freely of their time and should be treated with the utmost respect at all times.
Since we are all trading XXXXXXX, and due to the nature of the different trading styles including that of XXXXXXXXXX, entries and exits to trades will vary and should not to be construed as attempts to front run any market.
XXXXXXX founded this website & room for the purpose of furthering the education of all traders, premised upon the slogan "Traders helping traders." This philosophy extends beyond trading and has become the cornerstone of the membership of this club. Members consider it a privilege, not a right, to be here. It is within the sole discretion of XXXXX or any moderator, to ban any person who may be disruptive to the website & room.

"By clicking the "I agree" button you acknowledge that you have read and understand the above statement and agree to the terms as set forth herein to remain here.

Click to expand...

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.

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:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

​

Financial Services Minister Jane Hume told The Australian the new IDs would “help to create a fairer business environment by improving data integrity, creating greater confidence in directors’ identities, and allowing earlier identification of director involvement in unlawful practices, such as illegal phoenix activity”.

“Director ID will help to prevent false and fraudulent director identities, which ensures business owners doing the right thing get a fair go. It will make doing business easier, faster and safer,” Senator Hume said.

Senator Hume said directors would “keep the same director ID as they move between different roles, businesses and even countries”. “Director ID not only paves the way for streamlined experiences in the future but offers directors greater confidence that they are protected from fraud and illegal activity today,” she said.

Click to expand...

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

A good a place as any to post this link.


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.

Belli said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.