SEASON 2, thursday TV WALLSTREET WARRIORS

Discussion in 'Professional Trading' started by jtnet, Jan 22, 2008.

  1. Actually in his book, you get more of the sense that he closed his fund/became a "market pundit" in order to capitalize on WSW. Doesn't look like that worked out very well, so far

    But in his defense, his blog is pretty good, I still don't think he can trade, but teaching is for those who can't do.
     
    #211     Feb 5, 2008
  2. It is always back to good ol' Tim.

    His commentary I do agree with especially in terms of his views on that Boiler Room crew.

    Definitely will be interesting to see how all these folks in the second season will play out especially the rookie and her time with SMB.
     
    #212     Feb 5, 2008
  3. Can someone post the gay leprechaun so we can get back to this season. Longhorns I am ashamed of you.
     
    #213     Feb 5, 2008
  4. #214     Feb 5, 2008
  5. The SEC closed his fund, not he, for advertising returns through WSW.
     
    #215     Feb 5, 2008
  6. ScapGF

    ScapGF

    Is that so?
     
    #216     Feb 5, 2008
  7. GGSAE

    GGSAE

    Here you go:
    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...light=tim sykes gay leprechaun&pagenumber=163
     
    #217     Feb 5, 2008
  8. He specifically stated it was his choice alone for closing his fund so he could focus on his book and his future TV (i.e. NON-TRADING career).

    The SEC will not necessarily shut you down for advertising your returns, they will fine you if you are not regulated and advertise illegally.
     
    #218     Feb 5, 2008
  9. ScapGF

    ScapGF

    This is another thing I am wondering. It could be considered libel for people to go around making some of the statements here.

    Why is there so much contradiction in this thread about this guy?

    Very very odd...
     
    #219     Feb 5, 2008
  10. Negative. Sykes is considered a public figure since he has profited from a public persona and inherently accepts the risk of being in the public eye. Second, a public figure must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. Since, Sykes was clearly in violation of SEC Rule 502(c), my statement would be a logical conclusion.

    Damn never thought that CAIA would come in use here.
     
    #220     Feb 6, 2008