Shocker.

Yeah the Nextflix CEO can be a dumbass sometimes, but come on guys, go get the banks.

This is exactly what the SEC is supposed to do.

Someone needs to write a 140 character forward-looking statement disclaimer.

Why is this asinine?

Wow...Alabama really ISN'T concerned about Notre Dame then

The SEC and other "regulatory" bodies know better than to bite the hand that feed them.

Anytime the CEO says something that's not an official report and the stock jumps I'd at least want someone to make sure its on the up and up. The posting was widely reported and Netflix stock rose 13% the day of the posting.

Droptop AMG.

Please excuse me while I threadjack ya' all.

I account for about 400 of those hours. The 2 year old watches Diego and Dora incessantly and I go to sleep to Mythbusters pretty much every night. Since their TV series will load the next episode it will run all night while I snooze. These statistics mean nothing more than people, like me, are running multiple 'viewing devices' (Wii/X-Box/Compter) in their house. SEC stop wasting our tax money on nothing.

ha-ha-guy: Yeah the Nextflix CEO can be a dumbass sometimes, but come on guys, go get the banks.

So you want more and more regulation, but directly selectively at companies you like the least.

Maybe the government can charge them a fee to look the other way.

/oh wait, that would make us a third world country. Well, why not, our fiscal policy of norrowing more than a trilliin a year is taking us there anyway.

So, the SEC wants copies of all Facebook posts released as formal press releases?

Sounds like a 20th century law colliding with 21st century technology.

facebook people problems

One of the few times Vandy can compete in the SEC.

generallyso: The SEC and other "regulatory" bodies know better than to bite the hand that feed thembangs them and gives them drugs.

FTFY

Members of congress are to have that info first.

ChipNASA: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 350x360]

LOLshop. This is originally a SbB picture:

ChipNASA: Please excuse me while I threadjack ya' all.

[www.takeyourskirtofftombrady.com image 340x323]

ChipNASA: [i124.photobucket.com image 336x571]

ChipNASA: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]

et al.

There's a reason you're on my favourites list Chip. These are it. Acerbic wit occasionally falls in there too.

This Looks Fun: ChipNASA: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 350x360]

LOLshop. This is originally a SbB picture:
[img.baltgames.lv image 390x400]

Thank you sir. Profuse and sincere thanks.

This Looks Fun: ChipNASA: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 350x360]

LOLshop. This is originally a SbB picture:
[img.baltgames.lv image 390x400]

Oh I saw that but hey, any excuse....

Silverstaff: So, the SEC wants copies of all Facebook posts released as formal press releases?

Sounds like a 20th century law colliding with 21st century technology.

No, the SEC doesn't want company representatives making financially material statements over facebook, twitter, youtube or whatever. They want a press release that goes accross the newswires.

I'm a stock analyst with a reputable bank. Our bank has webfilters. I cannot view fb, twitter, youtube, etc. because they are blocked. This means it was selective disclosure, that not everyone could readily see or verify. That is why it is illegal.

I think maybe subby just doesn't understand the implications of this. Sure, it may have been an innocent mistake, but if you don't enforce this a company CEO could just set up a small Facebook page and his friends could subscribe. He could use it to leak information on when to buy and sell the company stock. That's called insider trading.

they should probe Drew over Fark posts.

wee beastie: Silverstaff: So, the SEC wants copies of all Facebook posts released as formal press releases?

Sounds like a 20th century law colliding with 21st century technology.

No, the SEC doesn't want company representatives making financially material statements over facebook, twitter, youtube or whatever. They want a press release that goes accross the newswires.

I'm a stock analyst with a reputable bank. Our bank has webfilters. I cannot view fb, twitter, youtube, etc. because they are blocked. This means it was selective disclosure, that not everyone could readily see or verify. That is why it is illegal.

1. It wasn't really financially material.
2. Just because your employer denies you access to certain channels of information, that doesn't make them any less public.

Dumb. Real dumb. Where was Netflix's compliance counsel?

I can sort of see this happen on a small cap company, but Netflix' management SHOULD be running this past their lawyer.


fts: Thel said the question the SEC and Netflix will likely try to hash out is whether investors look to Facebook or Twitter for trading information. If the answer is yes, Thel said companies should disseminate any remotely material information from those posts in a press release or an SEC filing.

The answer will be "yes". Not so much that investors look to those sites for trading info, but management is putting the info out there and they know the investors will see it.

/Don't mess with the SEC
//Gosh, what nice looking young women.

Regulations on social media have become much stricter. I got to the point where I just deleted my Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn accounts. Better that than having to "friend" some cubicle monkey at my B/D and giving them access to, oh, just about every damn thing in my personal life.

Looks like somebody did not make enough donations, or donated to the wrong person.

JesseL: wee beastie: Silverstaff: So, the SEC wants copies of all Facebook posts released as formal press releases?

Sounds like a 20th century law colliding with 21st century technology.

No, the SEC doesn't want company representatives making financially material statements over facebook, twitter, youtube or whatever. They want a press release that goes accross the newswires.

I'm a stock analyst with a reputable bank. Our bank has webfilters. I cannot view fb, twitter, youtube, etc. because they are blocked. This means it was selective disclosure, that not everyone could readily see or verify. That is why it is illegal.

1. It wasn't really financially material.
2. Just because your employer denies you access to certain channels of information, that doesn't make them any less public.

1. You're flat wrong on that point. Online businesses (and investors) track revenue and revenue growth through seemingly odd statistics. Cost-per-click is a huge indicator in the strength of an online search engines advertising strength/effectiveness. Viewership hours is just as pertinent to Netflix.

2. Debateable, though I would tend to agree with you.

 

wee beastie: Silverstaff: So, the SEC wants copies of all Facebook posts released as formal press releases?

Sounds like a 20th century law colliding with 21st century technology.

No, the SEC doesn't want company representatives making financially material statements over facebook, twitter, youtube or whatever. They want a press release that goes accross the newswires.

I'm a stock analyst with a reputable bank. Our bank has webfilters. I cannot view fb, twitter, youtube, etc. because they are blocked. This means it was selective disclosure, that not everyone could readily see or verify. That is why it is illegal.

However, they can also just upload a press release on their website and call it a day, which is significantly more selective; overall the audience of the post was likely much wider than their website. From now on, they'll probably just upload the same statement to FB and their website at once.

Can we join the party???

JesseL: wee beastie: Silverstaff: So, the SEC wants copies of all Facebook posts released as formal press releases?

Sounds like a 20th century law colliding with 21st century technology.

No, the SEC doesn't want company representatives making financially material statements over facebook, twitter, youtube or whatever. They want a press release that goes accross the newswires.

I'm a stock analyst with a reputable bank. Our bank has webfilters. I cannot view fb, twitter, youtube, etc. because they are blocked. This means it was selective disclosure, that not everyone could readily see or verify. That is why it is illegal.

1. It wasn't really financially material.
2. Just because your employer denies you access to certain channels of information, that doesn't make them any less public.

The phrase in the reg is information material to the company's overall financial picture. Material as in germane, not what your clothes are made of. And it is non-public because FB is password protected and one must sign up to gain access. Could one make the mistake that they think it's public cuz its on FB? Yes, but there are provisions for accidental leaks in the regs. This CEO wants to make new regs so he can shout boasts of prowess that end with a hash tag.