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.
Thanks for the PM Cass./
Nice and seemingly accurate and easy to understand report found by earlyretired.
Please pass this around to all the boards.
Subject: RE: OT?: For those of you that missed..
From earlyretired
PostID 415764 On Tuesday, August 02, 2005 (EST) at 12:08:16 AM
Response To: mguru PostID 415727
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Patrick Byrne's Summary Of The Naked Shorting Problem
From the Overstock Message Board - 3/13/05
Dear Colleagues,
The issue of “naked shorting” seems to be becoming a news item, and is even (perhaps) a scandal in the making: I have been called by several publications in the last week to discuss the issue, and there is word of a major exposé on a network news program to run soon. This is especially topical, given the issue of Social Security private accounts.
As is known by those who have been regular readers of this board, my involvement with the issue is that of a concerned citizen. However, I figured I would write something here so those who are interested can follow along. Some of this draws together points I have tried to make in earlier threads about “Wall Street Criminals,” but most of this is new. I have tried to explain here the Failure-to-Deliver and Naked Short issue in plain English. You auction sellers in particular will find many parallels between this issue and the issue of auction fraud, albeit it on a grander scale. In any case, I hope that those who are interested may find this a concise and useful précis on the issue.
1. Shorting Stock: This is a legal and honorable method of investing. Suppose a share of IBM stock is trading at $90, but I expect IBM to go down. I “short” it. This means that, through my broker, I borrow a share of IBM, sell it in the open market, and collect $90. Assume that IBM then drops from $90 to $50. That is as low as I think it is going to go, so I “cover” my short: I take $50 of the $90 that I collected, I buy a share out in the market, and return it (through my broker) to the person who loaned me a share in the first place. I am left with $40 profit.
2. Failure-to-Deliver (“FTD”): The American stock market runs on a “T+3” system. This means that when you sell a share of stock, you have 3 days to deliver that share. If you do not deliver within 3 days, you have, “failed to deliver,” or “FTD’ed”. Think of this like someone who posts auctions but does not deliver the goods.
3. DTCC: Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. This is the back-office of Wall Street. Rather than have people run around with paper stock certificates, the DTCC keeps electronic records of who owns which stock at which brokerages, and settles the trading of stocks. If you “FTD” (“Fail to Deliver”), the DTCC are the folks whose books don’t match.
4. Strategic Failures to Deliver: Not all FTD’s are necessarily illegal. Someone may forget to get shares of stock out of her sock draw and deliver them to her broker within three days of a sale, yet this does not make her a criminal. Also, in the center of Wall Street there exists a job known as a “market maker,” someone who is charged with maintaining an orderly market in a stock by continuously buying and selling to create liquidity. Market makers are allowed (on a good faith basis) to buy and sell stock that does not exist, temporarily, just to keep liquidity in a stock. Again, this is expected and allowed. What is not allowed, however, is for investors to sell and fail-to-deliver purposefully: doing so (through a variety of mechanisms that I will explain below) in an attempt to manipulate the price of a stock, is a “strategic” failure-to-deliver. Some folks believe that Strategic FTD’s played a role in the 1929 meltdown. In any case, there have been regulations against it since 1933 (regulations which provide for criminal and civil penalties). The slang term for “Strategic Failure to Deliver” is, “naked shorting.”
5. The Economics of Naked Shorting: The gist of naked shorting is simply, when a hedge fund pretends to short a stock (I say, “pretends” because it is stock that it does not really own, and which it does not really borrow). It sells those made-up shares into the marketplace, and collects the money just as though it sold real shares (note that this is “counterfeiting,” more or less, though with electrons rather than paper). If it is stock in a small company, and does not trade with much liquidity, then the hedge fund can keep “selling” its made-up shares and drive the stock price down to wherever it wants it to go.
In a healthy market, the check-and-balance on shorting would simply be the number of shares that are available for short sellers to borrow and sell. Since there would only be a finite number of shares to borrow and sell, there would be only a finite amount of pressure the shorts could bring upon a stock (and it would be offset by buying pressure holding that stock up). But if naked shorting is allowed, then there is no limit on how many bogus shares hedge funds can create. Thus means they can drive a stock’s price down close to $0. At the very least, this practice destroys peoples’ savings (remember, the shorts make money by driving the stock down, whereas any stockholders lose that same amount of money as the stock price drops). Some folks believe companies have been driven out of business by this, because they cannot raise new capital once those stocks have cratered badly enough.
The key is this: if given the right to create an unlimited number of new shares, essentially out of thin air, not limited by the number of shares “in the borrow” as legal shorting requires, these hedge funds can always drive the price down and always cover for a profit. That is why it’s, “illegal.”
6. How can Naked Shorting Occur in Our Regulated Markets?
a. The lazy explanation: How can a hedge fund get away with selling shares it neither owns nor borrows? One theory is that the DTCC (and some brokers) look the other way for “favored” clients. “Sell 100,000 shares of XYZ for me.” “Do you have the shares?” “Oh, you know I’m good for it!” Large clients enjoy such favored relationships and, because they have deep pockets, the DTCC and the brokers assume they can trust those clients to operate like this and true things up later. This lackadaisical attitude, however, gives dishonest hedge funds opportunity to “sell” stock that does not exist, and thus create downward pricing pressure that becomes self-fulfilling: as the stock gets driven down it reaches the point that other owners lose confidence and dump their stock, and as it gains downward momentum, the naked shorts can cover their shorts and move on.
b. The sleazy explanation: Believe it or not, there is a more insidious explanation of how this game works. Imagine that a sleazy hedge fund chooses a small, illiquid company to attack. Often that company is in a poorly understood sector, or is a company with some accounting complexities so it will be possible to create “where there’s smoke there’s fire” skepticism about its books. Here is what happens:
i. The hedge fund gets that US firm listed on foreign exchanges.
ii. That hedge fund then “sells” shares it neither has nor borrows.
iii. When the DTCC calls after three days and says, “Where are those shares?” The hedge fund replies, “I borrowed them on the German exchange, they will take a few weeks to show up,” or “I am a market maker for the German Exchanges in that stock, and thus excluded from the no naked shorting rules.”
iv. With a nudge and a wink the DTCC says, “OK, we’ll loan you from our own reserves of that stock.” The DTCC collects a high fee from the hedge fund to do this.
v. The hedge fund has relationships with a few compliant reporters, who are called and told, “Do a hatchet job on Company XYZ.” They do so, perhaps in return for off-shore compensation.
vi. The combination of bad publicity coupled with the selling of an unlimited number of shares drives the stock down to the point either that the hedge fund covers and moves on, making a quick $20 - $50 million, or the company goes bankrupt, or simply remains a penny stock (in which case the hedge fund never has to cover its short, and hence, never pays taxes!)
7. The Regulatory Environment: After years of pressure, in 2004 the SEC promulgated Reg SHO (for “SHORT”), which directs the exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, etc.), to start publishing early in 2005 lists of companies whose FTD’s exceed a reasonable amount (“reasonable” = “greater than .5% of the shares in the company”). This list is called, “The Reg SHO Threshold List.” It does not list the amounts of FTD’s, just the names of companies that are experiencing them.
The way Reg SHO is supposed to work is as follows. If a company crosses beyond the threshold of a reasonable amount of FTD’s, and then stays there for 5 days without crossing back under the threshold, its name goes on the Reg SHO list. Then, after 13 more days, if it is still on the list, brokers are supposed to tell those hedge funds that are failing to deliver that they must stop failing to deliver, and those brokers are not supposed to take any more short sale orders from those accounts for those stocks.
8. Reg SHO is flimsy: So flimsy, in fact, it set folks scratching their heads - does the SEC not get it? Here is why it is flimsy:
a. Telling the hedge funds after 13 days, “You are not supposed to do any more naked shorting in this stock,” is meaningless - they weren’t supposed to be naked shorting it in the first place.
b. There are no sanctions for violators.
c. Why grandfather violations that have been illegal for 71 years?
9. Two theories regarding how big a problem this is:
a. Tame theory: This is a problem for a small percent of companies, just those that find themselves on the Reg SHO list. Thus this is not a hard problem to fix. But fixing it is going to cause a lot of hedge funds to lose money. They are well-connected with the SEC, and the SEC is co-opted to the point that they are tightening down on this half-heartedly.
b. Extreme Theory: This problem is so endemic that if the SEC tried to fix it the system would crack. There are so many losses waiting to be realized by the hedge funds, it would be like the failure of Long Term Capital Management, but on a massive scale (see Roger Lowenstein’s, When Genius Failed, for an excellent explanation of the risk that the failure of even one large hedge fund put on our financial system). In this scenario, the reason the SEC is not being suitably aggressive is because they know the problem has gotten beyond what can be solved without a systemic failure.
10. Which theory is correct? I don’t know. No one knows outside the DTCC, SEC, and maybe the NASDAQ and NYSE. And they are not telling. I have asked the DTCC, SEC, and NASDAQ for the size of Overstock’s FTD, but they all refused to disclose it. This amazes me: if I sold 100 shares out the back door of Overstock without registering them I would go to jail, but (per our inclusion on the SHO Threshold list) some hedge funds have sold hundreds of thousands (or millions) of phantom shares, and the SEC and DTCC protect them. When I ask, “By appeal to what law or regulation are you refusing to disclose this to me?” they clam up. This is one of the warnings telling me that this may be a problem of catastrophic proportions.
I hesitate to describe the others, as it sounds like I might be lining my hat with tinfoil. But in the interest of completeness, I shall. In 2004 it became public that one well-known short seller, David Rocker (of Rocker Partners), was shorting our company. In October, 2004 I invited him on a conference call to debate me, and it got pretty nasty (see this transcript for details:
Click here for the transcript
Immediately thereafter some knowledgeable-sounding people got in touch and warned me of four things to come, in this order:
a) Reporters A, B, C, and D would call and do hatchet jobs on me, as they were lackeys to Rocker;
b) I would find Overstock.com listed on innumerable foreign exchange;
c) We would find ourselves on the Reg SHO Threshold list when it came out in January.
d) The SEC would announce they were starting some inquiry on us.
I already knew Reporters A, B, and C, who had gone far out of their way to write uncharitable articles about me, and while I always wondered at their eagerness to do so, I gave the prediction of more such articles little credit. Yet I had never heard of Predicted Reporter D (Elizabeth MacDonald of Forbes): within two days, she (along with A, B, and C) had called with clear intent to write something unpleasant. Elizabeth hunted for a week, then gave up: we are so squeaky clean, the most such reporters can do is write anodyne trivia: e.g., Herb Greenberg actually once devoted a whole column to how quickly or slowly I returned his calls, and how this could be interpreted as a sign of sinister intent (as opposed to, say, whether or not I was getting on and off planes as I synched my emails).
Then over the autumn of 2004 we found ourselves listed on five exchanges in Germany and one in Australia: someone went to all the trouble to get us listed on these exchanges, though hardly any shares have traded since (this confirms the theory that these foreign exchanges are used simply as smoke screens by hedge funds needing an excuse for the DTCC).
On January 27 we appeared on the Reg SHO Threshold list (only about .4% of companies are on this list).
Thus, these “crazies” had made four pretty far out predictions. The first three of them have come true. The test of any theory is its ability to make accurate predictions, and the “crazies” have passed that test. So I started paying a lot more attention to what they had to say.
Incidentally, their fourth prediction (the SEC trying to make trouble for me) has not come true. However, an increasing number of smart people are telling me that, now that I am taking a lead role in this issue, and am the first non-fringe player to do so, the SEC is going to crucify me, for they (according to these sources) are thin-skinned, vindictive, unused to criticism from those whom they regulate, and partly captured by the very hedge funds that benefit from these practices.
11. The “Pay-No-Attention-To-The-Man-Behind-The-Curtain” Responses: A party line has developed within Wall Street that runs like this:
a. “There is no naked shorting”: This used to be the party line, but since 300 companies appeared on Reg SHO since January 2005 it has worn thin.
b. “Reg SHO will address this problem”: As only a handful of those 300 firms have dropped from the Threshold List, this is dubious, too.
c. “CEO’s who make an issue of this are just mad that their stock is down.” I have nothing about which to be mad: our stock is 2-3X where it was in early 2004. I am trying to bring attention to this because there is a risk to the public.
d. “The folks who make a big deal about this are crazies who line their hat with tinfoil.” Could be. I know they sound whacko. I know I sound whacko, too. But the test of a theory is its ability to predict, and these “crazies” make accurate predictions. I have been called by precisely those journalists they predicted would call me. OSTK has appeared on 6 foreign exchanges, none at our own request. On January 27 we appeared on the Reg SHO list (and as we have not come off it since then, I feel the “crazies” are right about the flimsiness of the Reg SHO mechanism, too). The only thing these “crazies” have missed so far is that the SEC has not started any vendetta against me (yet) for bringing attention to this issue.
I hope this gives you, dear reader, a broad enough overview of this problem that it may suggest further inquiry. I repeat, I do not know how deep a problem this is. It could be next to nothing, or it could be an Enron waiting to happen (with far greater ramifications, as the failure could be systemic). I don’t know, but I do know that it would be easy for the SEC to clear up the mystery: all they have to do is publish the size of the FTD’s for the companies on the Reg SHO Threshold List.
This is, I think, a fair question for me to ask: after all, if without registering them I sold 100 shares of Overstock out the back door of the firm I would go to jail. Yet per our inclusion on the Reg SHO Threshold list we know that some hedge funds have done that with hundreds of thousands (or millions) of shares: why won't the SEC reveal who, and how many counterfeit shares they ''issued''? The fact that the SEC, the DTCC, and the exchanges refuse to disclose this (though they must have the information every night, else how could the calculate whether or not a company belonged on Reg SHO list?) makes me worried that it might be a bigger problem than they want anyone to know.
On the other hand, if there is really nothing to this issue, then the problem can be cleared up overnight, and myself (and all the other “crazies”) would go away. All we need are the answers to five simple questions, which I write out below in the hopes that some concerned citizens, or an enterprising journalist, can use them to dig a little deeper on her own.
12. Five Questions for the SEC
a. Does SEC receive daily data from the DTCC/NSCC on Fail to Delivers?
i. If not, why not?
ii. How can the SEC regulate without this?
b. How large is the fail to deliver problem? Does the SEC even know?
i. Why won’t the DTCC tell anyone how large the problem is?
ii. Why won’t the DTCC tell the SHO companies how large their FTD problem is?
c. How can firms remain on the threshold list if Reg SHO is enforced?
d. Why grandfather - pardon - all violations prior to January 7, 2005?
i. Wasn’t it against the rules (10(a)2, 15(c)6-1, 17(a)) since 1934?
ii. Why won’t the SEC enforce rules on the books for 71 years?
iii. What logic supports pardoning flagrant, regular violation of rules?
e. Who are the biggest violators of the Failure to Deliver rules?
i. Who benefits the most from the past fails being pardoned?
ii. Why reward these hedge funds for systematically violating the rules?
f. How can private SS accounts be considered while this is going on?
I thank any reader who has stuck with me through this long explanation. I made it as clear and concise as I could, and hope that through these modest efforts some enterprising reader or journalist will have gained the ammunition needed to breech the defenses of Wall Street and get some answers.
And if for my efforts you see me doing the perp walk on TV, remember to send me a cake with a file in it!
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick M. Byrne (Ph.D., Stanford)
CEO, Overstock.com
PS My disclaimers:
- While David Rocker has been public about being short us (and a surprising percentage of other companies on the Reg SHO Threshold List!), I do not mean to claim that he is naked short Overstock. Someone is, but it is not necessarily him. He could simply be short us, and it be some other party who is naked short our stock.
- The Tools of Satan are going to try to claim that this is all some scheme of mine to get people to buy our stock. It is not true. None, and I mean none, of this is intended to get anyone to think about buying Overstock stock. I am doing this because I am convinced enough of the issue to want the public to get some answers. Someone has to do this, and John Wayne is dead. But do not confuse my involvement with this issue with any valuation or other issue regarding Overstock.com. Hey, I get involved in other political issues to (e.g., education reform), and they are not all driven by some secret aspirations to get customers or shareholders.
from mguru on the Dateline flop
http://bobosrevenge.blogspot.com/
http://www.ncans.net/patch.htm
we just can't let this slide...our government is screwing us.
The Dateline piece was sure a dud last night.
Seems they were really constrained to say more.
On the plus side maybe it sparked some interest and the people will demand more.
Call, email Dateline and request more. We (not necessarily EDIG) are getting murdered with this naked short garbage. It's like the man said....they have no idea how many companies went bankrupt because of it and also...what.... 400 billion in losses to shareholders????
Some senators are working on it also. I think Durbin is one of them.
Fred,
We weren't going anywhere before the buyout IMO. Digeplayers was all we had and a bunch of hype on the digesystem. Even Robert never acknowledged anything.
I don't see where we gained any ground. price said it all today. Some agoracons bailed with the few cents profit.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was planned this way.
I really feel sorry for those few good posters left on Agoracon...I don't see the positive in the buyout not going thru.
They (the LL groupies) are trying to get some suckers to buy Monday AM so they can unload....watch. Typical pre meeting garbage.
ASK THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CORP.
WHY IT HAS VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT
On February 7, 2005, the DTCC, operating under the auspices of two SROs, the New York Stock Exchange and NASD, and a member of the Federal Reserve, deliberately interfered with the distribution of FinancialWire, a global news provider, by contacting Investors Business Daily, which then pulled the newswire from its “breaking news” section and its distribution to Yahoo Finance.
This fact is not contested.
The DTCC, through its attorneys, admitted to the interference. The admittance is posted on the web at http://www.investrend.com/Admin/Topics/Articles/Resources/349_1113403487.pdf
The American people will not tolerate interferences with their Constitutional Rights and their own choices for news. A poll being conducted at Investrend Information, shows that over 95% believe the DTCC should be “punished” for its First Amendment violations.
Contact any of these directors of the DTCC to ask if they support First Amendment Violations by the organization they govern:
Michael C. Bodson, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MWD); Gary Bullock, Global ead of Logistics, Infrastructure, UBS Investment Bank (NYSE: UBS); Stephen P. Casper, Managing director and Chief Operating Officer, Fischer Francis Trees & Watts, Inc.; Jill M. Considine,Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC); Paul F. Costello, President, Business Services Group, Wachovia Securities (NYSE: WB); John W. Cummings, Senior Vice President & Head of Global Technology & Services, Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER); Donald F. Donahue, Chief Operating Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC); Norman Eaker, General Partner, Edward Jones; George Hrabovsky, President, Alliance Global Investors Service; Catherine R. Kinney, President and Co-Chief Operating Officer, New York Stock Exchange; Thomas J. McCrossan, Executive Vice President, State Street Corporation (NYSE: STT); Bradley Abelow, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS); Jonathan E. Beyman, Chief Information Officer, Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH); and Frank J. Bisignano, Chief Administrative Officer and Senior Executive Vice President, Citigroup / Solomon Smith Barney's Corporate Investment Bank (NYSE: C), Eileen K. Murray, Managing Director, Credit Suisse First Boston (NYSE: CSR); James P. Palermo, Vice Chairman, Mellon Financial Corporation (NYSE: MEL); Thomas J. Perna, Senior Executive Vice President, Financial Companies Services Sector of The Bank of New York (NYSE: BNY); Ronald Purpora, Chief Executive Officer, Garban LLC; Douglas Shulman, President, Regulatory Services and Operations, NASD; and Thompson M. Swayne, Executive Vice President, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM).
For more information, contact FinancialWire at contact@investrend.com, or its attorney, Marshal Shichtman, Esq., 1 Old Country Road, Suite 120, Carle Place, NY 11514 / 516-741-5222, or Shichtman@aol.com
SGE...good post...but
they're shorting the stock...I don't believe we would. The share price wouldn't drop like it has been if we held it.
The open market is there alright...we buy while they unload...c'mon!!!!!!!!
They also are privy to inside information one way or another....they can't lose. If you think that's OK..I gotta wonder about your intentions.
Subject: RE: REPOST - Gilgamash's incredibly sensible post - NOT!/OZ
From SGE1
PostID 414186 On Monday, July 25, 2005 (EST) at 5:13:35 PM
Response To: richardo PostID 414141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I hear ya, are you in a position to buy a 100M share block? 10M? 1M? And, assuming you and others are in a position to buy 1M share blocks, do you want the company to expend resources to intiate and administer 100 such transactions? Would you want 100 (more) people to be privy to insider info, continually updated (as they would have a right to expect)? Rather scary stuff IMO. And what happens if you and others decided to dump? (assuming there weren't constraints on dumping as is typically the case in such equity buy situations).
The open market is there.... The price is cheap....
Don't get me wrong, I really don't care much for the ''friendly investor'' scenario. I'd actually rather see them issue to the open market (better price, no contraints, inside info kept inside, and the resulting dilution is the same, though PPS would probably suffer more visibly).
And I'd much rather see one true equity investor step up, preferably one that could directly enhance our business prospects.
SGE
SGE, poop, BL, daboss and a few others should read thru some of
CHIPPERCA's posts...they may learn something.
as this one...
now why would it be to a disadvantage to be a financier?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1904096
Posted by: chipperca
In reply to: None Date:12/9/2003 11:56:04 PM
Post #of 70627
As unpleasant as it may be, I do think the timing of the S-3 will have to wait until the financers of the convertible shares have been able to create a sufficient short position to protect their investment. The announcement of the S-3 registration probably will put pressure on the share price, allowing them to cover their short position at a lower price. When announcements of new OEMs and Airlines is made, and the share price rises, they will be able to cash in on a higher price with the warrants. It is a no-lose situation for the convertible investors, and that is why they invested 1.2 million dollars. When E-Digital becomes profitible, it will be nice that this type of financing will no longer be necessary.
I don't believe they (the agoracon crowd) could explain their way out of this type of financing...it's the way it is...like it or not.
Now, Gil, Ozzy and myself at least know who has the advantage.
I'm thinking
of buying plane fare for Ozzy, jtdiii,
gilga and Cass (gas money) to the shareholders meeting.....
now, whose going to keep the rest of the goons out of there?
Oz.
makes ya wonder whose side these guys(daboss, sge,sunpoop, bl and a few more) are on...don't it.
That or they're just stupid...which I seriously doubt.
I said this a few months ago..why aren't we (shareholders) allowed to buy in.
Ya think they don't know the difference between these kinds of shares...lmao...ya right.
Your post is 100% right on...keep teaching these numbskulls.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
<< previous Message Next Message >>
Subject: RE: REPOST - Gilgamash's redundent post/Frank
From richardo
PostID 414172 On Monday, July 25, 2005 (EST) at 3:59:41 PM
Response To: sunpoop PostID 414166
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How a story changes from one post to another.
The subject deals with shareholders buying new shares, not OTC shares. I mentioned this and Gil elaborated in more detail.
Seems like SGE, DABOSS and yourself have not followed the correct script.
I and others would like the opportunity to purchase new issued shares, hopefully issued to expand the business or implement strategies that would benefit the shareholders.
Since when have we been allowed to purchase any shares from them company. The last 125 million have gone to friendly investors or as stock options.
And most of the past shares sold have been at a favorable price to the investors, as compared to the market price at that time the transaction.
Quit throwing stones and stay on topic, please
HH...email from me
yesterday.
Fred...per your last pm...
you're being way to nice in reference to him.
He'd be a perfect candidate for "Make my day".
;o)
Looking forward to this sinking the Caymans. Get rid of a lot of crap in the stock market.
What'ya think Danl...wipe out Simms...lol.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071500302_pf.html
no stock movement (volume) nor any insider buying.
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:07:13 -0400
From: "FirstAlert" <editor@firstalertnetwork.net> Add to Address Book
Subject: SPECIAL CALL FOR VOLUNTEER OVERSIGHT INVESTOR
To: editor@firstalertnetwork.net
In response to the expressed interest of the SEC Committee on Smaller
Public Companies, Investrend Research is engaged in a project with a
consortium of Standards-based research providers to devise and
introduce a
new Model for the delivery of independent research coverage.
If you are a non-affiliated, small investor, owning less than 5% of any
equity, or would like to recommend one who would like to enter into a
dialogue about becoming an official Overseer for this initiative,
please
write to contact@investrend.com right away.
There may be once-a-year (expenses-paid) travel for meetings associated
with this assignment, which would not last more than one or two years
for
any individual.
Investrend looks forward to hearing from you at contact@investrend.com
if
interested.
Thank you.
The Editors.
Maybe they're buying IMS for
Alan Pellegrini...sounds like he has some drive and doesn't sit on his ass like the edigger boys...plus he's been in this field a while and has good connections.
Hot Topic: Where In The World Is Alan Pellegrini?
Long time IFE marketer, Alan Pellegrini, has been named CEO of IMS, a Southern California-based IFE systems developer and content management company. After a 3 year stint as Vice President of Sales/Marketing & Operations at Matsushita Avionics, Alan has returned to his entrepreneurial roots to take up the helm at IMS. “Not only was I looking to get back to the small business environment, I also saw a real opportunity for a new technology-based IFE product. Because of the size and weight of installed entertainment systems, single-aisle aircraft markets have been largely underserved to date,” said Pellegrini. It is no coincidence that IMS is developing a portable entertainment device dubbed the “PEA” (Personal Entertainment Appliance) which is slated for airline use later this year. Alan does not see portable devices replacing the traditional installed IFE systems; rather he envisions a device that integrates entertainment, connectivity, and onboard solutions as a system, not a stand-alone product. Mr. Pellegrini noted that he also sees potential for relationships with technology companies that would utilize the handheld device as an enabling technology in air-to-ground applications. Alan’s position as a board member of SkyWay Aircraft gives him a unique technology perspective that could help position the PEA to the portable solution forefront by bringing the various engineering and applications disciplines such as Wi-Fi and advanced portable data loading to the fastest growing segment of IFE. “Our real focus is a content delivery solution and the PEA is the appliance that makes it all work. The IMS solution ties together the loose ends associated with traditional, portable entertainment solutions…and I joined IMS to help bring the solution to the airlines,” said Alan. As many of our readers know IFExpress has been a proponent of portable IFE solutions and the AIRFAX.com website will soon contain a must-read story on the IMS PEA. Don’t miss it! If you are interested in contacting Alan or finding out more information on the PEA
email Alan at apellegrini@imsconsultants.com
http://www.airfax.com/airfax/releases/showrelease.asp?id=1155
http://www.apbo-conference.com/Speakers/speakers_pellegrini.htm
YO FREDDY.
Thanks.
OT: FRED
busted thru 1.40...guess may as well get some more.
Now we need some real volume.
http://finance.lycos.com/qc/stocks/charts.aspx?__VIEWSTATE=dDwtMjU0NzEyNDU2Ozs%2B&chartform=form...
OT: Fred
Circle Group Hldgs Inc Industry: Food Products
1011 Campus Drive Website: http://www.crgq.com
Mundelein, ILLINOIS 60060 Phone: +1 847 549-6002
UNITED STATES Fax: +1 847 549-6146
Employees: 11
E-tailer acctd for 87% of 2004 revs; Food Product Development, 9%; Business Consulting, 4% and Security Training & Products, Nom
Circle Group Holdings, Inc.. The Group's principal activity is to commercialize Z-Trim, a corn-based fat replacement developed by the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Z-Trim can be used decrease fat and calories and increase insoluble healthy fiber in foods. The Group operates through four segments: Food product development, E-tailer, Business consulting and Security training and products. The Food product development segment owns license to Z-Trim. The E-tailer segment distributes pillows, blankets and other bedding products. The Business consulting segment develops distinctive web sites and provides business-consulting services for the Group's wholly owned subsidiaries. The Security training and products segment offers self-defense training courses and products. The Group operates solely in the United States.
Price and Volume
Moving Average 50-day 0.53
Moving Average 200-day 1.02
Vol Average 50-day 197,400
Vol Average 200-day 153,100
52-wk high (6/25/2004) 5.40
52-wk low (6/8/2005) 0.28
Bid n/a
Ask n/a
Share Related Items
Market Cap 50,746,040
Shares Outstanding 44,908,000
Current P/E Ratio n/a
Management Effectiveness
Return on Equity (1yr) -100.43%
Return on Assets (1yr) -89.57%
Return on Investment (1yr) n/a
Valuation Ratios
Price/Earnings (1 yr) -13.78
Price/Book (1 yr) 5.92
Price/Cash Flow (1 yr) -11.51
Estimates
The requested information is not available for the symbol you entered.
Financial Snapshot More
All data in thousands
except per share amounts. 2003 2002
Revenue 742 564
Total Net Income -2,828 -3,588
Earnings per Share -0.10 -0.17
EBIT/DA -2,612 -3,368
Long Term Debt 74 99
Per Share Data
Earnings (1 yr) -0.09
Current P/E Ratio n/a
Cash Flow -0.06
Cash
(last quarter in thousands) 505
Annual Dividend n/a
Book Value 0.01
Profitability
Gross Margin (1 yr) -172.42%
Operating Margin (1 yr) -1,331.07%
Profit Margin (1 yr) -1,301.91%
Lastest Insider Trades More
Dana L Dabney
Award of Stock 472,000 06/13/2005
Gregory J Halpern
Award of Stock 201,667 05/31/2005
Research Works Inc
Proposed Sale (Form 144) 20,000 04/18/2005
Gregory J Halpern
Open Market Sale 12,000 04/07/2005
R Real-time D Delayed
watch out HH,Fred, Cass...you's all in a heep O' trouble....
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/050622/089345.html
Universal Communication Systems, Inc. and Subsidiary AirWater Corporation, Together With Company Chairman Michael J. Zwebner, Re-File an $18 Million Law Suit in United States District Court for the Southern District of California Against Internet Poster James Coughlin of San Diego, CA, Using Internet Alias "IrishJim44"
Wednesday June 22, 12:41 pm ET
MIAMI, FL--(MARKET WIRE)--Jun 22, 2005 -- Universal Communication Systems, Inc. (OTC BB:UCSY.OB - News), its wholly owned subsidiary AirWater Corporation, as well as company chairman Michael Zwebner, announced today that they have re-filed the law suit against James Coughlin, Internet alias "IrishJim44," for claims totaling the amount of $18 million. The law suit has been filed in Federal Court in the Southern District of California.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a statement issued today, Michael J. Zwebner said: "As the Florida courts denied jurisdiction over this case, we have now re-filed suit against James Coughlin in Federal Court in San Diego CA. Our suit is the first of a number of upcoming law suits all against Internet posters who have conducted an unrelenting vicious and malicious evil on-line campaign of harassment against the companies and me for several years. We believe and allege, based on the actual posts made, that this defendant, as well as a number of co-conspirators, embarked on a deliberate and planned evil program of defamation, libel and the repeated publication of an unrelenting barrage of false information, false innuendoes and lies, as well as acts of cyber-stalking and harassment, all for personal illegal and immoral gain, and to cause maximum economic and commercial damage as well as severe emotional distress to myself."
In a further statement, Michael Zwebner said: "Defamation and the unrelenting libelous posting and publication and knowingly posting and reposting of false and libelous information, contrary to the belief of many anonymous Internet posters, is not protected under ANY US laws, even the First Amendment. Cyber-stalking and harassment are Felony Crimes. This defendant, and a number of others, acted in conspiracy with extreme evil intent and malice, at all times hiding behind a supposedly anonymous Internet alias. We intend to aggressively pursue legal action, to uncover ALL the anonymous posters (aliases) who have engaged and continue to enact on-line defamation, cyber-stalking and harassment, and then take action and file applicable law suits against ALL these posters, as well as criminal complaints with the police and or the FBI, however long it takes. We are absolutely intent on actively pursuing this course of action, to bring these evil defendants to justice. We strongly advise all other Internet posters to seek legal advice BEFORE making wild, accusatory, false and defamatory statements on the Internet and elsewhere."
About Universal Communication Systems, Inc.
For further detailed information, visit our web address: http://www.ucsy.com
About AirWater Corporation
For further detailed information, visit our web address: http://www.airwatercorp.com
About Millennium Electric TOU Limited
For further detailed information, visit our web address: http://www.millennium-electric-inc.com
About Solar Style, Inc.
For further detailed information, visit our web address: http://www.solarstyleinc.com
Safe Harbor:
Caution Concerning Forward-Looking Statements by Universal Communication Systems, Inc.
This document includes certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management's current expectations or beliefs, and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied by the statements herein due to changes in economic, business, competitive, technological and/or regulatory factors, and factors affecting the integration of the businesses of Universal Communication Systems, Inc. More detailed information about these factors may be found in filings by Universal Communication Systems, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including their most recent annual reports on Form 10-KSB and quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB. Universal Communication Systems, Inc. is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaim any such obligation to, update or alter their forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
Contact:
Contact:
Rolando Sablon
Company: Universal Communication Systems, Inc., Miami Beach
Voice: 305-672-6344
Email: Email Contact
URL: http://www.ucsy.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Universal Communication Systems
Thanks HH/
OT:Thanks Fred,
They're sending out weekly newsletters now with positive statements of where they're selling and promoting their Z-trim. Might be on their way...hope so.
OT: FRED
What do you think about CXN?
It's flying and I have no idea why. Anything on the charts?
The New York Times called Friday to ask,
"What's the Emergency?"
Why is the meeting this Wednesday at 6 p.m. about SarBanes-Oxley 404 so essential to the survival of smaller public companies?, the reporter wanted to know.
The reporter had seen the following notice:
EMERGENCY MEETING OF PUBLIC COMPANY
CEOs, CFOs AND ATTORNEYS, FUNDERS, IR PRACTITIONERS
Moderator: Marshal Shichtman, Esq.
Panel Includes SEC Advisory Committee Members
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
SOUTHGATE TOWER / EMPIRE ROOM
6 p.m. to 8 p.m. / Cash Bar Available
371 7th Avenue at 31st Street Directly Across From Penn Station
This meeting directly precedes the second public meeting of the SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies (under $200m) Thursday, June 16, from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Friday, June 17, from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., at Columbia University Law School, Jerome Hall, Room 103, 435 West 116th Street.
http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acspc.shtml
http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/33-8575.pdf
http://www.investrend.com/default.asp?level=137
http://www.investrend.com/Admin/Topics/Articles/Resources/480_1117596550.doc
The Official SEC Agenda should be posted today or tomorrow!
Maybe everyone doesn't consider it to be an emergency, we responded to the reporter for the article she is planning this Thursday. Only if you are an executive, director, provider or shareholder of a smaller public company that can not afford the costs of compliance that are currently steamrolling ahead for implementation nine months from now!
Companies such as those described in the NY Times and have or will have to "go dark," as covered in the news today:
http://quotes.freerealtime.com/dl/frt/N?symbol=NDAQ&art=C2005061300164r9366&SA=Latest%20News
Or, those that, when late, face delisting and BANNED FOR A YEAR due to the proposed NEW Nasdaq rule for OTCBB companies now being considered by the SEC.
Or those that have been subjected to predatory trading practices, need help on the role of funders, etc. Two staff members of the SEC will also be in attendance, which will give many an opportunity to directly and informally ask important questions.
Why is Investrend co-sponsoring this, we were asked. Because it is the mission of our division, Investrend Information, to serve as a news and information disseminator and catalyst for important issues facing smaller public companies. Investrend is underwriting the cost of the facility as a public service. Those who meet will decide on an ad hoc basis whether to organize as a Task Force, how to present their interests on a united basis, and determine what the joint effort should be. Investrend will provide coverage and support for this, but it is not our role to make policy or to implement it.
WILL YOUR COMPANY BE REPRESENTED AT THIS VITAL MEETING WEDNESDAY?!
Co-sponsored by CEO Council (http://www.ceocouncil.net)
If attending, please email contact@investrend.com and let us know, or click on http://www.investrend.com/contact.asp
Bingo and so does
liarlong.
get Donaldson
for being to heavy handed?
http://globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=810&cid=1
The Future of the SEC - Interview with Gary Goodenow
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 6/3/2005
In June 2005, William H. Donaldson was forced to resign as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The reason? As the New York Times put it: "criticism that his enforcement was too heavy-handed". President Bush chose California Rep. Christopher Cox, a Republican, to replace him.
Gary Langan Goodenow is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida and the District of Columbia. The Webmaster of www.RealityAtTheSEC.com, he worked at the Miami office of the SEC for about six years, in the Division of Enforcement.
His experience is varied. As a staff attorney, he investigated and prosecuted cases enforcing the federal securities laws. As a branch chief, he supervised the work of several staff attorneys. As a Senior Trial Counsel, he was responsible for litigating about thirty enforcement cases at any one time in federal court. As Senior Counsel, he made the final recommendations on which cases the office would investigate and prosecute, or decline.
He describes an experience he had after he left the SEC.
"I represented an Internet financial writer with a Web site that touted stocks, Mr. Ted Melcher of SGA Whisper Stocks. The SEC sued Ted because as he was singing the praises of certain stocks in his articles, he was selling them into a rising market. He got his shares from the issuers in exchange for doing the promotional touting. Unfortunately for him, the SEC and the Department of Justice made an example of his case, and he went to jail."
Q. The SEC is often accused of lax and intermittent enforcement of the law. Is the problem with the enforcement division - or with the law? Can you describe a typical SEC investigation from start to finish?
A. The problem lies with both.
At the SEC, the best argument in support of a proposed course of action is "that's what we did last time". That will inevitably please the staff attorney's superiors.
SEC rules and regulations remind me of an old farmhouse that has been altered and adapted, sometimes for convenience, other times for necessity. But it has never been just plain pulled down and rebuilt despite incredible changes around it. To the uninitiated, the house is rambling with hidden passages, dark corners, low ceilings, folklore and horror stories, and accumulations of tons of antique rubbish that sometimes no one - not even some SEC Commissioners - can wade through.
Wandering from room to room in this farmhouse are the SEC staff. Regretfully, I found that many are ignorant or indifferent to their mission, or scornful of investors' plight, too addicted to their petty specializations in their detailed job descriptions, and way too prone to follow only the well-trodden path.
They are stunned by the rapidity, multiplicity, immensity and intelligence behind the scams. Their tools of research, investigation and prosecution are confusingly changed periodically when Congress passes some new "reform" legislation, or a new Chairman or new Enforcement Director issues some memo edict on a "new approach".
Staff attorneys typically bring investors only bad news and are numbed by the latters' emotional reactions, in a kind of "shell shock". The SEC lost one quarter of its staff in the last two years. The turnover of its 1200 attorneys, at 14%, is nearly double the government's average.
One SEC official was quoted as saying "We are losing our future - the people who would have had the experience to move into the senior ranks". Those that stay behind and rise in the ranks are often the least inspired. At the SEC enforcement division, one is often confronted with the "evil of banality".
The SEC is empowered by the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to seek injunctive relief where it appears that a person is engaged or about to engage in violations of the federal securities laws. This is a civil remedy, not a criminal law sanction. Under well-settled case law, the purpose of injunctive relief is deterrence, rather than punishment, of those who commit violations. Investors do not know that, and are uniformly shocked when told.
The "likelihood requirement" means that, once the Commission demonstrates a violation, for injunctive relief it needs only show that there is some reasonable likelihood of future violations. "Positive proof' of likelihood, as one court demanded, is hard to provide. At the other extreme, I had one former Commissioner tell me that, as he understood the law, if the person is alive and breathing, the Commission enforcement staff can show likelihood of future violations.
The broad powers of the federal courts are used in actions brought by the Commission to prevent securities violators from enjoying the fruits of their misconduct. But because this is a civil and not a criminal remedy, the SEC has a unique rule where defendants can consent to an injunction without "admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint". This leads to what are called "waivers", and I submit that "waivers" are the fundamental flaw in U.S. securities laws enforcement.
In a nutshell, here is the problem. A "fraudster" commits a fraud. The Commission sues for an injunction. The fraudster consents to the injunction as per above. The Court then orders the fraudster to "disgorge" his "ill gotten gains" from the scam, usually within 30 days and with interest.
In most cases, the fraudster doesn't pay it all and the Commission moves to hold him in civil contempt for disobeying the Court's order. The fraudster claims to the Court that it is impossible for him to comply because the money is gone and he is "without the financial means to pay". The Commission then issues a "waiver" and that's the way many cases end. Thus both sides can put the case behind them. The fraudster agrees to the re-opening of the case if he turns out to have lied.
This procedure is problematic. The Commission typically alleges that these fraudsters have lied through their teeth in securities sales - but is forced to accept their word in an affidavit swearing that they have no money to pay the disgorgement. So the waivers are based on an assumption of credibility that has no basis in experience and possibly none in fact.
Moreover, the Division of Enforcement has no mechanism in place to check if the fraudster has, indeed, lied. After the waiver, the files of the case get stored. The case is closed. I don't know if there's even a central place where the records of waivers are kept.
In the six years I was at the Commission, I never heard of a case involving a breach of waiver affidavit. I doubt if one has ever been brought by the Commission - anywhere. UPI ought to do a Freedom Of Information Act Request on that.
Something similar happens with the Commission's much vaunted ability to levy civil penalties. The statute requires that a court trial be held to determine the egregiousness of the fraud. Based on its findings, the court can levy the fines. But, according to some earlier non-SEC case law, a fraudster can ask for a jury trial regarding the amount of the civil penalties because he or she lack the means to pay them. U.S. district courts being as busy as they are, there's no way the court is going to hold a jury trial.
Instead, the fraudster consents to a court order "noting the appropriateness of civil penalties for the case, but declining to set them based on a demonstrated inability to pay". Again, if the fraudster lied, the Commission can ask the Court to revisit the issue.
Q. Internet fraud, corporate malfeasance, derivatives, off-shore special purpose entities, multi-level marketing, scams, money laundering - is the SEC up to it? Isn't its staff overwhelmed and under-qualified?
A. The staff is overwhelmed. The longest serving are often the least qualified because the talented usually leave.
We've already got the criminal statutes on the books for criminal prosecution of securities fraud at the federal level. Congress should pass a law deputizing staff attorneys of the Commission Division of Enforcement, with at least one-year experience and high performance ratings, as Special Assistant United States Attorneys for the prosecution of securities fraud. In other words, make them part of the Department of Justice to make criminal, not just civil cases, against the fraudsters.
The US Department of Justice does not have the person power to pursue enough criminal securities cases in the Internet Age. Commission attorneys have the expertise, but not the legal right, to bring criminal prosecution. The afore-described waiver system only makes the fraudsters more confident that the potential gain from fraud outweighs the risk.
I'd keep the civil remedies. In an ongoing fraud, with no time to make out a criminal case, the Commission staff can seek a Temporary Restraining Order and an asset freeze. This more closely resembles the original intent of Congress in the 1930s. But after the dust settles, the investing public deserves to demand criminal accountability for the fraud, not just waivers.
Q. Is the SEC - or at least its current head - in hock to special interests, e.g., the accounting industry?
A. "In hock to special interests" is too explicit a statement about US practice. It makes a good slogan for a Marxist law school professor, but reality is far subtler.
By unwritten bipartisan agreement, the Chairman of the SEC is always a political figure. Two of the five SEC Commissioners are always Democrats, two Republicans, and the Chairman belongs to the political party of the President. I am curious to see if this same agreement will apply to the boards established under the Sarbannes-Oxley Act.
Thus, both parties typically choose a candidate for Chairman of impeccable partisan credentials and consistent adherence to the "party line". The less connected, the less partisan, and academicians serve as Commissioners, not Chairmen.
The Chairman's tenure normally overlaps with a specific President's term in office, even when, as with President Bush the elder following President Reagan, the same party remains in power. SEC jobs lend themselves to lucrative post-Commission employment. This explains the dearth of "loyal opposition". Alumni pride themselves on their connections following their departure.
The Chairman is no more and no less "in hock" than any leading member of a US political party. Still, I faulted Chairman Pitt, and became the first former member of SEC management to call for his resignation, in an Op/Ed item in the Miami Herald. In my view, he was impermissibly indulgent of his former law clients at the expense of SEC enforcement.
Q. What more could stock exchanges do to help the SEC?
A. At the risk of being flippant, enforce their own rules. The major enforcement action against the NASDAQ brokers a few years ago, for instance, was toothless. Presently, Merrill Lynch is being scrutinized by the State of New York, but there is not a word from the NYSE.
Q. Do you regard the recent changes to the law - especially the Sarbanes-Oxley Act - as toothless or an important enhancement to the arsenal of law enforcement agencies? Do you think that the SEC should have any input in professional self-regulating and regulatory bodies, such as the recently established accountants board?
A. It remains to be seen. The Act establishes a Public Accounting Oversight Board ("the Board"). It reflects one major aspect of SEC enforcement practice: unlike in many countries, the SEC does not recognize an accountant/client privilege, though it does recognize an attorney/client privilege.
Regrettably, in my experience, attorneys organize at least as much securities fraud as accountants. Yet in the US, one would never see an "attorneys oversight board". For one thing, Congress has more attorneys than accountants.
Section 3 of the Act, titled "Commission Rules and Enforcement", treats a violation of the Rules of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as a violation of the '34 Act, giving rise to the same penalties. It is unclear if this means waiver after waiver, as in present SEC enforcement. Even if it does, the Rules may still be more effective because US state regulators can forfeit an accountant's license based on a waived injunction.
The Act's provision, in Section 101, for the membership of said Board has yet to be fleshed out. Appointed to five-year terms, two of the members must be - or have been - certified public accountants, and the remaining three must not be and cannot have been CPAs. Lawyers are the likeliest to be appointed to these other seats. The Chairmanship may be held by one of the CPA members, provided that he or she has not been engaged as a practicing CPA for five years, meaning, ab initio, that he or she will be behind the practice curb at a time when change is rapid.
No Board member may, during their service on the Board, "share in any of the profits of, or receive payments from, a public accounting firm," other than "fixed continuing payments," such as retirement payments. This mirrors SEC practice with the securities industry, but does little to tackle "the revolving door".
The Board members are appointed by the SEC, "after consultation with" the Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the Treasury Secretary. Given the term lengths, it is safe to predict that every new presidential administration will bring with it a new Board.
The major powers granted to the Board will effectively change the accounting profession in the USA, at least with regards to public companies, from a self-regulatory body licensed by the states, into a national regulator.
Under Act Section 103, the Board shall: (1) register public accounting firms; (2) establish "auditing, quality control, ethics, independence, and other standards relating to the preparation of audit reports for issuers;" (3) inspect accounting firms; and (4) investigate and discipline firms to enforce compliance with the Act, the Rules, professional standards and the federal securities laws. This is a sea change in the US.
As to professional standards, the Board must "cooperate on an on-going basis" with certain accountants advisory groups. Yet, US federal government Boards do not "co-operate" - they dictate. The Board can "to the extent that it determines appropriate" adopt proposals by such groups.
More importantly, it has authority to reject any standards proffered by said groups. This will then be reviewed by the SEC, because the Board must report on its standards to the Commission every year. The SEC may - by rule - require the Board to cover additional ground. The Board, and the SEC through the Board, now run the US accounting profession.
The Board is also augments the US effort to establish hegemony over the global practice of accounting. Act Section 106, Foreign Public Accounting Firms, subjects foreigners who audit U.S. companies - including foreign firms that perform audit work that is used by the primary auditor on a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company - to registration with the Board.
I am amazed that the EU was silent on this inroad to their sovereignty. This may prove more problematic in US operations in China. I do not think the US can force its accounting standards on China without negatively affecting our trade there.
Under Act Section 108, the SEC now decides what are "generally" accepted accounting principles. Registered public accounting firms are barred from providing certain non-audit services to an issuer they audit. Thus, the split, first proposed by the head of Arthur Anderson in 1974, is now the law.
Act Section 203, Audit Partner Rotation, is a gift to the accounting profession. The lead audit or coordinating partner and the reviewing partner must rotate every 5 years. That means that by law, the work will be spread around. Note that the law says "partner", not "partnership". Thus, we are likely to continue to see institutional clients serviced by "juntas" at accounting firms, not by individuals. This will likely end forever the days when a single person controlled major amounts of business at an accounting firm. US law firms would never countenance such a change, as the competition for major clients is intense.
Act Section 209, Consideration by Appropriate State Regulatory Authorities, "throws a bone" to the states. It requires state regulators to make an independent determination whether Board standards apply to small and mid-size non-registered accounting firms. No one can seriously doubt the outcome of these determinations. But we now pretend that we still have real state regulation of the accounting profession, just as we pretend that we have state regulation of the securities markets through "blue sky laws". The reality is that the states will be confined hence to the initial admission of persons to the accounting profession. Like the "blue sky laws", it will be a revenue source, but the states will be completely junior to the Board and the SEC.
Act Section 302, Corporate Responsibility For Financial Reports, mandates that the CEO and CFO of each issuer shall certify the "appropriateness of the financial statements and disclosures contained in the periodic report, and that those financial statements and disclosures fairly present, in all material respects, the operations and financial condition of the issuer". This may prove problematic with global companies. We have already seen resistance by Daimler-Benz of Germany.
Act Section 305: Officer And Director Bars And Penalties; Equitable Relief, will be used by the SEC to counterattack arguments arising out of the Central Bank case. As I maintained in the American Journal of Trial Advocacy, the real significance of the Supreme Court decision in Central Bank was that the remedial sanctions of the federal securities laws should be narrowly construed.
Well, now the SEC has a Congressional mandate. Federal courts are authorized to "grant any equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors". That is an incredibly broad delegation of rights, and is an end run around Central Bank. I was surprised that this received no publicity.
Lastly, Act Section 402, Prohibition on Personal Loans to Executives, shows how low this generation of US leadership has sunk. President Bush has signed a law that makes illegal the type of loans from which he and his extended family have previously benefited.
Tacitly, the Act admits that some practices of Enron were not illegal inter se. Act Section 401, Study and Report on Special Purpose Entities, provides that the SEC should study off-balance sheet disclosures to determine their extent and whether they are reported in a sufficiently transparent fashion. The answer will almost certainly be no, and the Board will change GAAP accordingly.
Q. Does the SEC collaborate with other financial regulators and law enforcement agencies internationally? Does it share information with other US law enforcement agencies? Is there interagency rivalry and does it hamper investigations? Can you give us an example?
A. The SEC and other regulators - as well as two House subcommittees - have only very recently begun considering information sharing between financial regulators.
This comes too late for the victims of Martin Frankel, who, having been barred for life from the securities industry by the SEC and NASD in 1992, simply moved over to the insurance industry to perpetrate a scam where investors have lost an estimated $200 million dollars.
Had the state insurance regulators known this person's background, he would have been unable to set up multiple insurance companies. Failure to share information is a genuine problem, but "turf" considerations generally trump any joint efforts.
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.
Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia. Sam Vaknin's Web site is at http://samvak.tripod.com
this is well worth listening too.
Darren Saunders explains it in laymans terms.
Lets get our certs.
everyone pass this on.
By: emit
22 May 2005, 09:09 PM EDT
Msg. 43815 of 43817
Jump to msg. #
'Where's My Stock'
A MMs view
http://cfrn.net/video/stream-low.html
emit...
this is well worth listening too.
Darren Saunders explains it in laymans terms.
Lets get our certs.
everyone pass this on.
Can someone post it on Agoracon...wonder how long it'll last.
By: emit
22 May 2005, 09:09 PM EDT
Msg. 43815 of 43817
Jump to msg. #
'Where's My Stock'
A MMs view
http://cfrn.net/video/stream-low.html
emit...
Are you saying there are more fools left on agora too milk?
Nawwww!
MH's last post prior says it all..LL got out while the getting was good. He realized it's over....too bad no one else doesn't over there.
They, me and a few others here are still hoping for IFE and Kino to help them/us out....I can't hold my breath that long.
Now we know why hedgefund con Liarlong was so upset with the Basso-hedgefund posts.
Bet no one has heard from him.
Does this mean we're in Sony??
Daboss missed this opportunity..cat must have his tongue...lol.
Studios Release Movies for Portable Device
Email this Story
May 16, 5:04 PM (ET)
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Universal Studios has become the latest studio to release movies specifically for the Sony PlayStation Portable, a handheld game device that also plays movies in a special format.
Universal said Monday it will release six titles on Universal Media Disc (UMD), the proprietary format devised by Sony for the PSP.
Sony, The Walt Disney Co. and Twentieth Century Fox have previously said they will release films on the miniature disc.
Initially the studios are releasing films that appeal to young males, the audience most likely to buy the portable games device.
Among the titles Universal will release this July are widescreen versions of "Assault on Precinct 13,""The Rundown,""Van Helsing,""Dawn of the Dead: Unrated Director's Cut,""The Chronicles of Riddick: Unrated Director's Cut" and "The Fast and the Furious."
Earlier this month, Fox said it will release five titles this July, including "I, Robot,""Napoleon Dynamite," and "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story."
Studios are embracing the format because, unlike current DVDs, the new discs include robust features to prevent the movies from being illegally copied.
The UMDs, which can hold 140 minutes of DVD quality video, typically cost about $20.
Google sponsored links
PSP Playstation Portable - Get a Free Playstation Portable with Free Shipping
www.freePSPs.com
Peter Francis Geraci, Esq - 30 years of Chapter 7 Experience 22 offices Visit Infotapes.com now
www.infotapes.com/law_offices
Debt Consolidation - Stop fees, lower payments Free information, tips & tools.
www.globaldirectsvcs.com
other high tech news
• Computer Virus Spews Right-Wing Spam
• Study Examines Motives for Office Sabotage
• Studios Release Movies for Portable Device
• Sony Set to Unveil New PlayStation 3
• CNN.com to Make Its Online Video Free
• Next Via the Internet: Tailored TV
• Microsoft Launches MSN Desktop Search Tool
• Pollsters Left Out in Mobile-Phone World
• Players in the Emerging Internet Video
• Microsoft's Share of Browser Market Slips
email this page to a friend
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Well, we can dream....awwwww.
Wonder how come
Triveni has no shares...isn't he an insider?
phishing today...a couple of them...
To: john
Subject: eTimeBanker® Security Notice ID #513521 - Identity Confirmation Request
From: "security@bankofthewest.com" <security@bankofthewest.com> Add to Address Book
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
eTimeBanker® Department Notice
You have received this email because you or someone had used your account from different locations.
For security purpose, we are required to open an investigation into this matter.
In order to safeguard your account, we require that you confirm your banking details.
To help speed up this process, please access the following link so we can complete the verification of
your Online Banking Account registration information :
http://www.bankofthewest.com/BOW/home/eAccessLogOn.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 03:20:10 +0200
From: "Charter One Bank" <support_id_57230@charteronebank.com> Add to Address Book
To: john
Subject: Customer Notice: Data Confirmation
The body of this one here self destructed....
cover their behinds i guess.
line below was part of it.
Automobiles in 1959 Love Poems Tattoos in 1865
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
watch out there fellow Ihubbers.
Thanks Cass/
Cass....
If it's possible and if you get the chance would you mind digging up the email addys for the EDIG directors and officers. I can look them up but you may have them under one location.
Thanks
HRH
You've been around a long time...I thought you were the same olico and ..yes..
you can do something for me...and others..pump this SOB...lol.
I think I can say this..though it's not fact....but not a rumor either...if they start cranking out product...they'll need more equipment.
lol...sure have a lot of the same "features".
and writing similarities.
as for Greg selling 12k a month, no, I didn't say it was bad...but he's spending my investment...lol...and yes they have a ways to go. (utek?)
Isn't it supposed to work the other way around?
Later.
You're not the olico (ERIK) on RB then.
from sky 56
Subject: Agora adware??
From sky56
PostID 402371 On Wednesday, May 11, 2005 (EST) at 11:39:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW, I recently replaced my pc with a new one, on 5/5. I purchased ZoneAlarm Security Suite to use for virus/firewall, etc. protection. This program has a feature called MyVault that protects your personal info(passwords, pins, etc.) when you have to use them online and only allows that info to be sent to sites you designate. After programming that feature, I got an alert asking if I wanted to send my SS# to atwola.com which is a major internet adware outfit owned by AOL/TimeWarner. At the time, all I was doing was catching up on posts here on Agora. I didn't think to much about it but tonight I just got on here for the seconfd time today and was reading posts when I got a second alert asking if I wanted to send my SS# to ad.doubleclick.net. The only online function I use that info for is my bank and it is the only site I've authorized to receive it. Agora is the only site I've been on when getting these alerts. So be aware.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FYI..I get the same spy cookies...AOL/TWarner and Agora are friendly with each other.
SPY SWEEPER (info from jwperk) gets it out.
The Drudge Report nails you also with spyware.