Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
To bellymann and mdavid40 - have you had more contact
with FH&AF? (On 1/25, you both posted and said that
you had been contacted by them. Why did they contact
you?)
>this registration thing getting real old, and very repetetive.
But it's more than fair to ask them 'who are you?' and
what are your credentials? It's part of due diligence.
Now, here's another question for you all ... can you
find corporation registration info for Panamersa (or
under its prior name PayPro)? I looked (in TX - they used
to give this address: 710 Farmers Market Way, Ste 213,
Dallas, TX, 75201-8455), but didn't get a hit in the
database for TX corporations:
http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/Index.html
I also didn't get any hits on a LexisNexis database
search of corporation info that gave me specifics
on corporate registration anywhere for them -- yet
they are/were a real corporation (right?).
>first there was no one named Fairchild, then there was no Fairchild company, then there was no father named Forbes...
There most definitely is at least one David P. Fairchild.
Use www.zabasearch.com and select 'all states.' One of them
lives in CT, which is within driving distance of NYC.
(But I'm not saying that I know it's the president of FH&AF.)
There is also a Forbes L. Fairchild in FL (a state where
people go to retire). However, I'm not sure if the
'date of birth' given matches what I remember was
given for his age (81?) -- but the D.O.B info could be
wrong. Did anyone save the first 'letter from the President'?
So far, however, I haven't seen or found corroborating
evidence of FH&AF being a state-registered company -
but Midas's field trip suggests that they've been around
for at least a year.
>Account: #048-105704-041
vs. what's on the pdrexchange site:
Account Number 048-173363-001
Obviously different.
I wonder if the trustserv folks have an opinion about
the pdrexchange?
>Did you ever see the movie Boiler Room?
No. But I googled it just now to get the jist of it.
>http://www.trustserv.com/Corporate%20Fee%20Schedule.htm
That page has a date (in the content portion) of
16 November, 2006,
but the page info I get back from my browser says it
was last modified May 23, 2007, and expires on Feb 24, 2008
(for whatever that's worth).
The website seems reasonably up to date (with a newsletter
published December 2007)
Their website has a page of corporate officers.
Has anyone contacted any of them to ask about the
sameness of their account numbers and the ones on
the pdrexchage site?
Nevermind - I found it on the pdrexchange FAQ page.
What did they say to your accusation of fraud?
Did you tell them that you were personally defrauded,
so that they'd have reason to keep in contact with you?
How did you get the routing numbers for the
account owned by Fundación Pan America?
What did HSBC say to you when you spoke to them?
And, what all inquiring minds want to know: how do
we all find out what the status is of their investigation?
One more question on the Craigslist ad, on the principle ...
If the assumption is true that FH&AF are scammers,
what's the theory behind putting up an ad for non-scammers
to join as employees to help them run their scam?
[I'm not saying that I've seen any evidence that FH&AF
is a legitimate company, as I haven't found any references
to them in any corporation databases that I have access
to. I'm just saying that it seems odd for scammers to
blatantly advertise for people to join them as co-conspirators,
rather than as mere victims (i.e., 'customers').]
Re the Craiglist ads looking for "closers", they appear to
have been deleted. Did you (or anyone) save the text
from them?
>I had a chance to stop by 245 Park today. ...
Thanks for making the effort to make the visit.
>It has been thoroughly busted as just another scam from those zany, wild and crazy guy grifters, Mike Terrell and Pedro Fiol.
No offense intended, but isn't it true that it will only be
"thoroughly busted" when the bad-guys are all hauled away
and/or both www.pdrexchange.com and www.fairchildholdings.net,
and any follow-on incarnations, disappear from the net?
At the very least, we'd have to hear from some official
police/governing agency that it was a scam, right? Just
saying it is a scam here on IHUB isn't proof.
[That might happen, but I think it's premature to declare
it as having happened.]
No, I don't think anyone hacked the .com site.
They didn't say that, either.
They seem to claim, however, that the .net site
is not theirs. I'm not saying that I know/believe
that claim is true, but that's what I was told.
Given that the original pdrexchange folks forgot
to reserve www.pdrexchange.de, it isn't out of the
realm of possibility to believe that
www.fairchildholdings.com forgot to reserve the
.net equivalent - or let it 'get away' from them
somehow.
If it helps, think of my posts as a way of amusing
myself (playing Devil's advocate).
I think I've already said that I think there is
enough evidence to raise suspicion at a 'probable
cause' level to justify some sort of investigation
(though perhaps not enough for an arrest).
But to prove criminal action in court, you have to
meet a much higher standard of proof. I think
that 'sloppy communication' (and things like it)
might be sufficient to raise a sufficient degree
of doubt.
If I were prosecuting this case, I'd need to know
a LOT more than what has been presented by the harshest
skeptic to have posted.
Another question is, who is authoring and entering their
web-page content? Is it D.P. Fairchild, or some
'computer geek' who thought it was a "Corp." when it
wasn't?
In court, you'd have to prove that 'the bad guys'
don't have any alibi/anyone-else-to-blame. You'd
have to establish who authored the web-content (at
first, when it said "Corp."), and that it wasn't just
a copy-writer's bungle (that was quickly fixed).
Are they shooting themselves in the foot by their
unprofessional bungles? Yes. But bungles alone
are not criminal. (But yes, criminals are often
bunglers ... which is why 'stupid criminal tricks'
are so entertaining.)
>Uh, penny, they supposedly have been in existence for fiftyyears. You don't think they would have decided?
Again, I'm mostly looking at hypothetical explanations.
I'm not arguing what I believe (for sure, or only
strongly suspect).
I don't disagree with this: that David Fairchild owes
his potential clients proof of existence of FH&AF,
being explicit about its organizational form (i.e.,
was it incorporated, or in existence in some other
legal non-incorporated form) and verifiable history.
Keep in mind that I'm not so much defending them as
trying to look at all the angles of defense.
The 'letter from the President' does not actually
use the word "Corporation/Corp'.
I don't know if they intended to incorporate in
NY, and changed their mind (to operate out of
Panama), or that they never intended to incorporate
and either were blatantly misrepresenting themselves
as a "Corp." or their web-content writer mistakenly
used the word "Corp." when they shouldn't have.
[Is that a good excuse? Maybe not ... but hypothetically,
one might argue that it must be proved that whatever
was posted originated from someone with the mindset
to lie, or whether there was just sloppy communication.]
It looks like they have purged the words 'corp'
from their web content (on the .com site).
Incidentally, David told me on the phone that (for
some reason) they didn't have control of the .net site.
(Is that believable? You decide ... but it does
seem that the .net site isn't being 'fixed' the way
the .com site is. Why they would not fix both sites,
and make them identical, is a puzzle of they control
them both.)
Whatever came of some poster's field trip to
245 Park Ave 24th Floor, to check them out?
Re 1-3, what the AG's office said they already knew about ...
what does it mean that 'they already knew about it', other
than someone had complained? Did the AG say anything that
affirmed that they knew that FH&AF is bogus? Mere knowledge
of allegation (reported prior to your call) is not proof
that the claims have merit (i.e., that they have truly
committed a crime).
Re 4) - I admit that I don't know any securities law,
to know for myself whether MT and TR were illegally selling
unregistered securities in Dallas; but if they were,
given that they were doing that fairly openly last
year, why weren't they investigated and arrested last
year? How did they manage to get away clean?
I'm not saying that I'm at all impressed with
the debut of www.fairchildholdings.com, but what
I don't know for a fact is this: whether they
were actually intending to pass themselves off
as a NY corporation and hoped that no one would
check (how likely is that, even for a scammer),
or that being registered in NY was just an option
that they changed their minds on, but they (like
MT and the original debut of the pdrexchange)
got sloppy and let go out the door web-content
that was obsolete [i.e. 'filler content' for
set-up purposes] that they had meant to replace
with what is there now (i.e., their info of
having offices in Panama).
Does it all look suspicious? Sure. But, again,
would it be proof that would stand up in court?
I have my doubts about that (based on what I
know today). However, would it surprise me if you
are 100% correct? No.
If they were indicted to stand trial today, the
prosecution would have to meet the 'beyond a
reasonable doubt' standard, which is pretty high.
I'd say that at best, today, there is only 'probable
cause' to look into the details.
>I listed the website.
If you mean what shows up when you just type
in the top-level website address, "A Letter from
the President," that wasn't 'new' to me, as I
had seen it yesterday. I thought you might
have meant 'new today' (since the content of
various pages seems to have changed over the
weekend).
Great going? Didn't a critic encourage everyone to call?
Why not call? It is the number they give on their website
to call. Did I give something away, or tip them off?
How would that have been possible? Don't they read this
board and already know that someone from this board
has (claimed to have) gotten an investigation started?
You are correct that it was only someone who identified
himself as David Fairchild. I wouldn't know if that
wasn't his real name. There are David P. Fairchilds
in the real world. He could be one of them.
How do you know the number terminates at a NYC residence?
[Sorry if I missed the post that proved how to determine
this.]
I'm happy to hear about your full confidence that the
DA's office will get to the bottom of this quickly.
My issue is this: the DA's office, and I presume the
OAG (Office of the Attorney General?), will do whatever
is in their power to do (maybe nothing - I don't know),
but they won't tell the public about anything at this
point, so it seems pointless to crow about it and urge
people to call them to verify that an investigation is
on-going.
Claims that it is an election year so that ensures
an outcome that makes for good press are as meaningful
as proof of anything as statements of hope that
in reality FH&AF is legit - they are claims
without substance.
I'm not *defending* FH&AF, I just don't think the
proof offered by the critics will 'hold up in court,'
as what I've seen is basically circumstantial, and
not iron-clad.
>Read the new post from the CEO at www.fairchildholdings.com
Please give a link because "new" is a relative term.
>call 866 978 0538 and after you have fun chatting with that person call 212 335 9000
As I begin to write this, it's almost 1pm my time (EST in
the USA). I called both numbers a few minutes ago.
David P. Fairchild answered the first number.
We chatted for a few minutes. He said that he
was in Costa Rica.
The Manhattan DA's office answered the second number
(I looked them up first, so knew I was calling them.)
They transfered me to 'public information.' The nice
woman said that if there was an on-going investigation
(which she didn't admit to), they could not comment on
it. So, my conclusion is that you can't get proof from
the Manhattan DA's office that there is an investigation.
What else did D.P. Fairchild say? Nothing that would
confirm that they were being investigated; but he
confirmed that, today, apart from closing your
account with the PDR Exchange/Fundacion, you can't
get your money out (yet), as the cash-card doesn't
yet exist. Basically he repeated what others have
said MT said, that the Fundacion/PDR Exchange isn't
a bank, but a long-term investment platform. [I'm
not saying that that answer makes me happy.] He did
seem emphatic, however, that a person who wished to
close their account could get their money out.
He also said one or two other things that were
'interesting' -- but rather than contribute to
the bashing, I'd recommend that anyone interested
call him and speak to him yourself about your
concerns. [Basically I don't want to be a source
of hearsay, beyond what I've already said.]
He didn't object to my sending him e-mail.
Albert Michaels has also been reasonably responsive
to e-mail (timewise, if not content-wise to my
100% satisfaction). I'm hoping to get more e-mail
back from Mr. Michaels.
Am I convinced it is NOT a scam? No. But am I
convinced that it is a scam? Not yet - not beyond a
reasonable doubt. I've only seem enough to make
me suspicious, but not enough to serve as verifiable
proof (that cannot be explained away).
>fincen is a joke? Call them and ask about mike terrel and Panamersa
Since it's now the weekend (meaning calling today would
be pointless), if you have already called them, would
you mind relaying what they told you about MT and Panamersa?
Thanks in advance (unless you already posted what they
told you, and I missed it).
Thanks for the reply.
Dare I ask: is there a good reason to take a chance
on this stock? Or would buying it just make those
trying to get out happy?
What Cal-Bay shares expired Oct 1, 2007?
(Oh - and hi, I'm new to the CalBay board, as is my interest
in Cal-Bay.)
I came across a press release at this url (dated 9/7/07):
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=1528702
that said that Lenox Corp bought Cal-Bay for $10 (which all
of you regular board readers probably know).
My question is this: if I buy Cal-Bay shares today at $.0001,
what am I buying? Expired shares? Or are currently available
shares real (but just at the bottom-of-the-barrel, price-wise)?
Thanks in advance.
> people who try to sell PDRs and buy shares to re-convert IMO have no chance of conversion or new foundation membership.
If a person manages to sell PDRs (and make money) in order
to buy more cheap shares of stock directly, then he would
already be a foundation member in order to sell PDRs, right?
Furthermore, how would the foundation know that a person
had the intention of being a 'flipper' by selling PDRs,
buying new stock cheap, and then converting? Plus, what's
wrong with that? Wouldn't that contribute toward the
goal of converting all shares to PDRs?
> Has anyone received any funds back from Pedro after selling a PDR?
I'm not *quite* as skeptical as OA, but I think this
is a legitimate question (although no one is obligated
to answer it, either). My skepticism about the
liquidity of what I might put into the exchange is the
major reason I haven't converted to certs and sent
them in.
Knowing that the cash cards have been issued and that
they really work is a HUGE piece of important info that
should be publicized by someone.
> Did any PDRs of any type trade today?
Proof that any PDRs are trading would be a good thing.
Is this sort of info available without having an account
on the exchange?
I googled "wash trading" and got a definition that it is
when one investor buys and sells in the same company through
two different brokers.
I was asking about two different people agreeing to be
the transaction parties, and somehow making that happen.
Is that illegal, if it can be made to happen?
That reminds me of a question I had about stock-buying in general :
Can person A arrange privately to sell X shares of Y to person B,
but selling through a broker so that it would show up on the
charts that we all watch (meaning that person C couldn't jump
in and grab them just by putting in a random order)?
Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
But to take the other side for a moment - it's all part of a
master plan to create a bogus exchange to encourage existing
shareholders to send in their certs so that the 'scammers'
can sell them (for nothing, like now) to make the MMs who
need to cover their short positions happy, and then run off
with the meager payback that they are getting, which somehow
is setting the stage for some brief future run-up that will
further enrich the scammers [but not any honest shareholders],
who will then finally disappear with all the cash leaving
everyone else holding the bag.
To take the non-scammer argument, it could be a legit attempt
to make things wonderful for Latin America, but maybe it will
fail with the same effect as if it were a scam.
Or maybe it will work ... but I haven't seen many verifiable
facts that explain the current situation with the stock price.
Is it just massive no-confidence by the marketplace?
>***They will be selling the actual shares they own for a lot more than .0002. They are selling these to let an mm cover that shorted this down to where we are now.
I see. So, they CLAIM, in public, to hate the mms who have
shorted the stock down, but they are really in league with
them, selling to those same mms so they can cover? Very evil.
Wouldn't the mms covering with certs that are supposed to
be stored in a vault to back PDRs mean the mms are
participating in the fraud? Or are mms all ostriches who
turn a blind eye to where the certs must obviously be
coming from? [After all, if YOU know this is a scam,
how can the professional mms NOT know it is a scam?]
It is encouraging, however, to think that since the scammers
will one day "be selling the actual shares they own for a
lot more than .0002," maybe some who hold shares in good
faith can catch a ride on the pump. Or would that be
unethical for good faith share-holders to sell at the
high that the scammers will sell at?
>***You must be new. Sending in the certs has reduced the float here. Something that needed to be done if any kind of decent run was to be had here.
Um ... OK; so that's the theory. But has there really been "any kind of a decent run" on the stock of the rest of the float? When will that kick in, I wonder?
>***No it wouldn't. Those certs were turned in with power forms. The company has every right to do with them as they wish. Who's going to know if they turned them in or not. The fundacion is private. No one will ever get to account for those shares ever.
If the deal is that the company promises to take care of the
interests of the fundacion members (who own PDRs), then the
doesn't have the "right" to break that promise just because
the certs were turned in with power forms.
I don't disagree, however, that if it is a scam, the
privacy and cert ownership gives them an advantage to
abuse.
>***Again you are wrong. They wouldn't be dealing with stolen stocks. MT and Pedro cannot sell their own stock without filing form 144. It would thogh be very easy for them to sell the certs that were turned in. If anyone ever asked for their certs back Pedro or MT could just give them some of theirs.
OK - because people sent them in, they weren't 'stolen' as
though they broke into some bank vault and took them away.
But since the deal is that the fundacion claims that it
will hold the certs that back the PDRs, selling the certs
out from under the PDRs is stealing. It's just a
technicality that the supposed theft would be possible because
the certs where signed over to them. If that is the scam,
the fraud, to sell the certs sent in by PDR buyers, how
is that not stealing?
"The Business Judgment Rule" ... Google it for information
that demonstrates how hard it can be to legally distinguish
bad business judgment from fraud.
Or follow this link:
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5078&context=expresso
for an interesting paper on it.
>Have you considered that they just might not be very good at scamming?
Ha, well, given how much fun it is to read about 'stupid
criminal tricks' in various places, and given that scammers
are bad guys to begin with, sure it's fair to ask: why
assume that they are good at being bad guys?
But the counter argument/possibility is that they are legit,
but just not very good at being legit. I was rather appalled
to learn just how hard it is to bring shareholder derivative
actions against corporate officers, because the law gives
a very heavy presumption in favor of the corporate officers.
Corporate officers (or, maybe, the Board of Directors) get
to decide whether a SDA is in the best interests of the
company. Guess how often those are given the green light.
The theory is that since business is a risk, the law wants
to encourage business risk taking, even by people who may
not be very good at it -- sort of a 'no pain, no gain'
theory. Although there may be little difference in the
end results when you compare blatant fraud with plain old
bad judgment, the law gives much greater protection to
bad judgment because it has to give people equal opportunity
to take business risks.
Sadly, at this moment, if the stock price is what convicts
PNMS of the truth, a good case for bad judgment seems like
it could be made. Sigh.
BUT, just to argue the other side again, the Exchange
really hasn't gotten going to prove its worth -- or
utter lack thereof -- beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Re wash sales - the only thing I sort of know about them
is that you have to sell your entire position. If you
hold onto some, you can't claim the wash. [Having sold
stock at a loss before, I recall getting a message of
that sort when I sold.] You may also have to wait so
long between the sale and the re-buy.
I suppose I ought to Google "wash sales" and learn more.
>Who else has 100s of millions of shares?
I don't know (and never claimed to know).
All I was asking was whether you knew for a fact
that MT, JB, and Pedro were selling theirs.
I take it, from your answer, that you don't know
that they are, but only presume that they are.
I'm not saying your guess is wrong; and it's obvious
that SOMEONE is doing all the selling. But at .0002
a share, 100,000,000 shares is a whopping $20K. I'd
like to have $20K extra, times however many 100s of
millions were sold -- but even if a billion shares
were just sold (at .0002), that's only $200,000.
Is that the sort of money that is typical for a
stock scammer to be after? Is that all MT and Pedro
are really after? Why would they go to all that
trouble rather than, say, just start dealing drugs?
Arguably SOMEONE must feel it's a plus to be selling
for virtually nothing. JF's blog said it was those
looking for tax breaks. I don't know enough to know
whether that's a credible argument. But still, I
just wonder how this could be such a 'good scam' for
the scammers when there seems to be so little money
to make (at these prices). I mean, don't the guys
who write those spam-letters from Nigeria make at
least as much, if not more?
What I wonder is this: if the Exchange is legit,
and will go on-line soon, work, and make $$$, how
might all the dumping (which someone is buying)
be putting someone in a position to make $$$ later?
[BTW - thanks for all replies. Both sides of this
issue are very interesting.]
>Correct me if I'm wrong...the PDRs link you to the quantity of shares,
I don't have any PDRs, but that would be my guess.
> and the TA has your name and the fact they issued the certs to you, so that is on record as well.
If "TA" is the issuing authority for the certs, sure.
But the TA wouldn't/couldn't track my choice to physically
send my certs to the Foundation. I presume that the
Foundation has no obligation to register the fact that it
holds my certs with anyone other than myself (if I had some)
via the PDR they give me.
Re the certs sent to the Foundation w/ a medallion guarantee -
Mike and/or Pedro are turning them over to their relatives,
or have their hands on them themselves, and have deposited them
with UBSS, and UBSS took them no questions asked (the ostrich
defense) and has happily agreed to dump them for cheap?
Is that the way UBSS typically operates, as a laundry for
stock certs? UBSS isn't required to perform any degree of
verification, that they aren't dealing stolen property to
the public?
Even if Mike and Pedro are as dirty as you say they are,
UBSS is readily complicit with them? [I've never dealt
with stock certs, so I don't know. Is it really that
easy to trade in stolen stock certs, once you get them?]