|
Post by Franko10 ™ on Mar 28, 2005 15:36:57 GMT -5
IMO, after having been temporarily suspended by the SEC, sighting lack of financial information, asset information, and corporate information - isn't it strange that we have been allowed to resume trading again without having turned in to the SEC a single substantial form 8-K?
Better yet, it's kind of funny that now we are trading "under the watchful eye of the SEC", we have STILL witnessed HUGE trading volumes! Either the SEC is:
1) taking note of who continues to short CMKX,
2) allowing MM to cover their NNS position in a deal with CMKX, or
3) watching Urban, his family, and close friends dump CMKX........................................N-O-T!!!!!!!
You choose! ;D
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 15:42:18 GMT -5
can only say whatsever
|
|
|
Post by Franko10 ™ on Mar 28, 2005 15:46:43 GMT -5
Yeah I agree with the posting,.. the SEC is watching,.. and the volume gets as high as 58 billion some days,.. so to me something extra is going on behind the scenes that we don't see or know,.. JMHO but it is a Strong one,.. lol
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 15:54:46 GMT -5
Yeah I agree with the posting,.. the SEC is watching,.. and the volume gets as high as 58 billion some days,.. so to me something extra is going on behind the scenes that we don't see or know,.. JMHO but it is a Strong one,.. lol same shovel but is it really different #censored#
|
|
|
Post by Franko10 ™ on Mar 28, 2005 15:57:05 GMT -5
same shovel but is it really different #censored# Referring to what part of this post?
|
|
|
Post by Designer on Mar 28, 2005 16:13:54 GMT -5
Referring to what part of this post? all but number 3 ---- minus the not really it just shows the sec has no power for enforcement cmkx should be revoked and NOT allowed to trade at all with out the required information and should go beyond the sec for criminal action against the company if no information is provided as the sec requested
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 16:18:37 GMT -5
all but number 3 ---- minus the not really it just shows the sec has no power for enforcement cmkx should be revoked and NOT allowed to trade at all with out the required information and should go beyond the sec for criminal action against the company if no information is provided as the sec requested yup this part
|
|
|
Post by Franko10 ™ on Mar 28, 2005 16:21:27 GMT -5
YOu two have no faith in anything do ya,.. lol
If you too feel the SEC is that powerless I suggest to you two to stop trading all together....
You keep buying more sub pennies too,.. if you have no fiath you should feel as though you are throwing your money away,..
Stop if that is the case,.. save yourself the pain. JMHO
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 16:23:26 GMT -5
YOu two have no faith in anything do ya,.. lol If you too feel the SEC is that powerless I suggest to you two to stop trading all together.... You keep buying more sub pennies too,.. if you have no fiath you should feel as though you are throwing your money away,.. Stop if that is the case,.. save yourself the pain. JMHO but we would miss all the excitement. can't be neg on stock if don't got it. lol
|
|
|
Post by Franko10 ™ on Mar 28, 2005 16:30:18 GMT -5
but we would miss all the excitement. can't be neg on stock if don't got it. lol LMFAO,.. good point my friend good point
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 16:42:46 GMT -5
LMFAO,.. good point my friend good point ;Dprecisly ;D
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 16:49:53 GMT -5
we are going to dateline party everyone
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 16:54:59 GMT -5
FirstAlert SPECIAL: DATELINE NBC AIR DATE FOR NAKED SHORT SELLING FirstAlert <editor@firstalertnetwork.net> More options 3:14pm (41 minutes ago) FirstAlert Network Monday, March 28, 2005 Visit the "Home of Independent Research" at www.investrendresearch.com ! Listen to StreetSignals™ (Investrend "ON-THE-AIR") "live" Saturdays from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on stations coast-to-coast, or live and archived on the web at www.BusinessTalkRadio.net, and click on "StreetSignals" at www.streetsignals.com, where you may also visit Spotlight Forum-On-The-Air presenting companies at the "Corporate Channel." FOR FULL ARTICLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS, VISIT: www.financialwire.netFinancialWire is distributed globally on the ComtexNews, Knobias, QuoteMedia, M2Presswire, TrackData, LexisNexis, Proquest, Newsedge, Dialog and Factiva networks, FirstAlert SPECIAL: DATELINE NBC AIR DATE FOR NAKED SHORT SELLING PROGRAM ########################################################### DOES YOUR COMPANY HAVE PROFESSIONAL ANALYST COVERAGE? Enrollment in standards-based research is an important measure of a company's commitment to transparency and Good Governance! You are a click away from experiencing the powerful Visibility platforms employing Investrend's industry-leading credibility and global distribution. www.investrend.com/contact.asp########################################################### Dateline NBC Air Date Set For Naked Short Selling Program FinancialWire has learned exclusively that the air date for the heralded and much-awaited national expose on the manipulative short-selling scandal known as StockGate is Sunday, April 10! The program has been in production for over a year. Two other articles of interest regarding StockGate were published today: StockGate: Did DTCC Interfere With First Amendment Distribution of Newswire? quotes.freerealtime.com/dl/frt/N?symbol=YHOO&art=C2005032800087r5538&SA=Latest%20NewsMar 28, 2005 (financialwire.netvia COMTEX) -- March 28, 2005 (FinancialWire) In a developing scandal, while the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp., controlled by the NYSE and NASD awaits the findings of one media regarding its purported role in assisting naked short selling, Dateline NBC, produced by General Electric (NYSE: GE), it has reportedly taken blatantly unconstitutional action to squelch the distribution of the reporting of another media. Investrend Information, which publishes FinancialWire, said it has asked its counsel, Marshal Shichtman, Esq., to look into the circumstances that led to FinancialWire being removed from the distribution of Investors Business Daily, which supplies news feeds to Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO), after Markethingych, formerly a partner with Viacom's (NYSE: VIAb) CBS and now a unit of Dow Jones (NYSE: DJ) was asked by IBD to turn off its feed to its online Investors.com and its redistributions. Shichtman has been provided with information about emails that purportedly described the collusive action as having been taken February 7 at the request of an executive with the DTCC. The DTCC apparently objected to the continued distribution of FinancialWire on the basis that in its opinion, the newswire publishes "opinion" and "not news." Both First Amendment and wrongful interference issues may be involved, as well as more serious Federal consequences should it be determined that DTCC executives have quasi-governmental ties. The First Amendment specifically protects news organizations from interference by the government. Although dozens of other media have now reported on the growing national scandal termed "StockGate," the DTCC has now publicly confirmed that its primary beef is with FinancialWire, which has been the sole media regularly following the now rapidly-expanding story for the past two years. A FinancialWire article was recently cited, for example, by U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) in questioning of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair William Donaldson. A video of that exchange is at www.investrend.com/Admin/Topics/Articles/Resources/655_1110670103.ramIn a post on its site, First Deputy General Counsel Larry Thompson responded to a DTCC statement that "Some articles have said we make almost $1 billion from (the Stock Borrow program): "This statement is purposely misleading. One billion dollars represents our total revenue from all our operations of all subsidiaries. The fact is that there are NO separate fees for transactions processed through the Stock Borrow program. There is just the normal fee for delivery of the shares, which is 30 cents per delivery. If you assume we make an average of 22,000 deliveries through Stock Borrow a day, there would be about $6,600 extra a day in revenue over 253 trading days, or about $1.67 million a year in additional revenue, out of $1 billion." FinancialWire had never stated what the DTCC makes from the Stock Borrow program. It quoted lawsuits as alleging that, and the only response the DTCC made to FinancialWire inquiring about the lawsuits was to deny that they existed. Thompson has now admitted in a Q&A posted at www.dtcc.com/Publications/dtcc/mar05/naked_short_selling.html that there have been 12 lawsuits naming the DTCC, and in it he disputes both the effectiveness of the lawsuits as well as the accuracy of the figures. Rather than dispute, comment on or respond to FinancialWire's inquiries, the DTCC has apparently decided it is easier to lean on its corporate friends to try to limit FinancialWire's distribution. Easier perhaps. Fair? Moral? Ethical? Legal? These will be the issues further to be explored. FinancialWire is a member of the Online News Association (http://www.onlinenewssassociation.org) For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on www.financialwire.netFinancialWire is an independent, proprietary news service of Investrend Information, a division of Investrend Communications, Inc. It is not a press release service and receives no compensation for its news or opinions. Other divisions of Investrend, however, provide shareholder empowerment platforms such as forums, independent research and webcasting. For more information or to receive the FirstAlert daily summary of news, commentary, research reports, webcasts, events and conference calls, click on www.investrend.com/contact.aspThe FinancialWire NewsFeed is now available in multiple formats to your site or desktop, free. Click on: www.investrend.com/XmlFeeds?level=268 ***** StockGate: DTCC Claims Lawsuits Failing, But Admits to $4.9B Daily Unresolved 'Fails To Deliver' www.pcquote.com/stocks/readNews.php?symbol=OSTK&id=3732922Mar 28, 2005 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- March 28, 2005 (FinancialWire) Among the goals of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation SHO was to transparently "show" the effects of illegal naked short sales to the financial community, and to stimulate discussion about what to do about it. Now that the formerly mute Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. has stepped into the fray, there is no doubt but these goals are working. At the same time, the regulation has clearly identified new "fails to deliver" for hundreds of public companies, including such prominent ones as Overstock.com (Nasdaq: OSTK), Taser International (Nasdaq: TASR), AMR Corp. (NYSE: AMR) and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (NYSE: MSO). These lists are at www.nyse.com/Frameset.html?displayPage=/threshold/ and www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx . Regulation SHO has also stimulated a large and well-heeled activist community, including a mystery anti-naked short sales campaigner using the pen name Robert O'Brien, whose full page ad in the Washington Post (NYSE: WPO) grew out of his belief that he and other holders of NovaStar Financial (NYSE: NFI) have been unfairly manipulated not only by a ring of short sellers thumbing their noses at the law but also by what he and others believe to be complicity by the NASD, the NYSE, the SEC and the DTCC in letting billions of dollars of investment capital trapped in these ongoing shenanigans slide. Opponents believe that a Dateline NBC special, being produced by the unit of General Electric (NYSE: GE) for a year now, when it is reportedly scheduled to finally air in mid-April, will set the wrongdoers and the wrongdoer-watchers back on their heels. concluded:
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 16:56:00 GMT -5
Other players in the drama include gadfly Dave Patch, whose tenacity as publisher of "StockGate Today" and the website www.investigatethesec.com has gradually but surely brought the issue to the forefront, even into the debate about the security of private accounts in President Bush's social security proposals, and more recently to the chambers of the U.S. Senate itself, where SEC Chair William Donaldson was grilled by U.S. Senator Robert Bennett, and prominent Houston lawyers Wes Christianson and John O'Quinn, who have made the deep pockets associated with naked short selling their next big project after taking on and winning against Big Tobacco and other seemingly invincible institutions. Their lawsuits against the DTCC, which is controlled by the NYSE and NASD, and others appear to be a key interest of the Dateline NBC team, according to FinancialWire sources. However, according to the DTCC itself, some of these suits may not be going well. In a rather unprecedented commentary on the "Naked Short Selling and the Stock Borrow Program" posted at the DTCC website at www.dtcc.com/Publications/dtcc/mar05/naked_short_selling.html , First Deputy General Counsel Larry Thompson said that nine of the 12 cases filed against the DTCC have been dismissed without trial. Thompson also says the DTCC makes only about $1.67 million per year from its Stock Borrow Program, which he disputes is a "counterfeiting" system, rather than the nearly $1 billion a year claimed in the lawsuits. In a rare display of transparency, however, while framing it in terms of a small percentage of daily transactions Thompson admitted that some $4.9 billion, involving an estimated 20,000 daily transactions remain unresolved "fails to deliver and receive." "The markets check to see if the amount of fails to deliver is more than 1/2 of 1% of the total outstanding shares in that security," said Thompson. "If it is, then it goes on a 'Threshold List.' If it is then on the Threshold List for 13 consecutive settlement days, restrictions on short selling then apply. The "close-out" requirement forces a participant of a registered clearing agency to close out any "fail to deliver" position in a threshold security that has remained for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity. If the participant does not take action to close out the open fail to deliver position, the participant is prohibited from making further short sales in that security without first borrowing or arranging to borrow the security. Even market makers are not exempt from this requirement." In his questioning of SEC Chair Donaldson, Senator Bennett suggested, however, that a loophole in the regulation allows market makers to "pass along" these "fails to deliver" from one to the other, leaving them "unclosed out" indefinitely. While in the overall scheme of the U.S. markets system, the fails to deliver of that magnitude represents the entire market caps of upwards of 500 smaller public companies every trading day, which if victimized in this admitted fashion, can find their survivals and the safety of the entire investments of their shareholders questionable indeed. The entire interview follows, with questions posed by the newsletter @dtcc, and the answers provided by Thompson: @dtcc: Let's start with the question, what is naked short selling and why has it suddenly become an issue? Thompson: Short selling is a trading strategy where a broker/dealer or investor believes that a stock is overvalued and is likely to decline. It is an integral part of the way our capital market system works. Basically, it involves borrowing stock that you don't own and selling it on the open market. You then buy it back at a later date, hopefully at a lower price, and as a result, making a profit. Naked short selling is selling stock you don't own, but not borrowing it and making no attempt to do so. While naked short selling occurs, the extent to which it occurs is in dispute. @dtcc: DTCC and some of its subsidiaries have been sued over naked shorting. What has been the result of those cases? Thompson: We've had 12 cases to date filed against DTCC or one of our subsidiaries over the naked shorting issue. Nine of the cases have been dismissed by the judge without a trial, or withdrawn by the plaintiff. The other three are pending, and we have moved to dismiss all those cases as well. While the lawyers in these cases have presented their theory of how they think the system works, the fact is that their theories are not an accurate reflection of how the capital market system actually works. @dtcc: One of the allegations made in some of the lawsuits is that the Stock Borrow program counterfeits shares, creating many more shares than actually exist. True? Thompson: Absolutely false. Under the Stock Borrow program, NSCC only borrows shares from a lending member if the member actually has the shares on deposit in its account at the DTC and voluntarily offers them to NSCC. If the member doesn't have the shares, it can't lend them. Once a loan is made, the lent shares are deducted from the lender's DTC account and credited to the DTC account of the member to whom the shares are delivered. Only one NSCC member can have the shares credited to its DTC account at any one time. The assertion that the same shares are lent over and over again with each new recipient acquiring ownership of the same shares is either an intentional misrepresentation of the SEC-approved system, or a profoundly ignorant characterization of this component of the process of clearing and settling transactions. @dtcc: Another allegation is that the Stock Borrow program has become "a reliable source of income" for NSCC? Some articles have said we make almost $1 billion from it. Thompson: This statement is purposely misleading. One billion dollars represents our total revenue from all our operations of all subsidiaries. The fact is that there are NO separate fees for transactions processed through the Stock Borrow program. There is just the normal fee for delivery of the shares, which is 30 cents per delivery. If you assume we make an average of 22,000 deliveries through Stock Borrow a day, there would be about $6,600 extra a day in revenue over 253 trading days, or about $1.67 million a year in additional revenue, out of $1 billion. concluded:
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 16:56:12 GMT -5
All of our members know that DTCC and all its subsidiaries operate on a "not for profit" basis. What that means is that we aim to price our services so that our revenues cover our expenses.
@dtcc: Just how big is the fail to delivers, and how much of those fails does the Stock Borrow program address?
Thompson: Currently, fails to deliver are running about 24,000 transactions daily, and that includes both new and aged fails, out of an average of 23 million new transactions processed daily by NSCC, or about one-tenth of one percent. In dollar terms, fails to deliver and receive amount to about $6 billion daily, again including both new fails and aged fails, out of just under $400 billion in trades processed daily by NSCC, or about 1.5% of the dollar volume. The Stock Borrow program is able to resolve about $1.1 billion of the "fails to receive," or about 20% of the total fail obligation.
The Stock Borrow program was created in 1981 with the approval of the SEC to help reduce potential problems caused by fails, by enabling NSCC to make deliveries of shares to brokers who bought them when there is a "fail to deliver" by the delivering broker. However, it doesn't in any way relieve the broker who fails to deliver from that obligation. Even if a "fail to receive" is handled by Stock Borrow, the "fail to deliver" continues to exist, and is counted as part of the total "fails to deliver." If the total fails to deliver for that issue exceeds 10,000 shares, it gets reported to the markets and the SEC.
@dtcc: If the volume in the Stock Borrow program is so small, why are these companies suggesting it is a major issue?
Thompson: Frankly, we believe that the allegations are attempting to purposely mislead those who are not familiar with this program. A number of small OTCBB and so-called "pink sheet" companies have contended that this practice is driving down the price of their shares and driving them out of business.
According to their own 10K and 10Q reports financial auditor's disclosure statements, many of these firms have admitted that "factors raise substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern." They have had little or no revenue, according to their financial reports, and substantial losses, for periods of seven or eight years. One of these companies has been cited for failing to file financial statements since 2001. Another has been cited by the SEC for press releases that misled investors on expanding business contracts that didn't exist. They will do anything they can do that takes people's attention off that kind of record, especially if they can convince a law firm to take the case on a contingency basis, which is what has happened.
@dtcc: Who are the law firms bringing these suits?
Thompson: The main law firms engaged in these lawsuits, and they have been behind virtually all of them, were principally involved with the tobacco class action lawsuit. They like to bring suits in multiple jurisdictions in an attempt to find any jurisdiction where they might be successful in winning large judgments.
@dtcc: What causes a fail to deliver in a trade? Is it all naked short selling?
Thompson: There can be any number of reasons for a "fail to deliver," many of them the result of investor actions. An investor can get a physical certificate to his broker too late for settlement. An investor might not have signed the certificate, or signed in the wrong place. There may have been human error, in that the wrong stock (or CUSIP) was sold, so the delivery can't be made. Last year, 1.7 million physical certificates were lost, and sometimes that isn't discovered until after an investor puts in an order to sell the security. There are literally dozens of reasons for a "fail to deliver," and most of them are legal. Reg SHO also allows market makers to legally "naked short" shares in the course of their market making responsibilities, and those obviously result in fails. We can't do anything about them but what we are doing: that is, report all fails of more than 10,000 shares in any issue to the marketplaces and the SEC for their action.
concluded:
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 17:01:35 GMT -5
@dtcc: What happens then? Thompson: The markets check to see if the amount of fails to deliver is more than 1/2 of 1% of the total outstanding shares in that security. If it is, then it goes on a "Threshold List." If it is then on the Threshold List for 13 consecutive settlement days, restrictions on short selling then apply. The "close-out" requirement forces a participant of a registered clearing agency to close out any "fail to deliver" position in a threshold security that has remained for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity. If the participant does not take action to close out the open fail to deliver position, the participant is prohibited from making further short sales in that security without first borrowing or arranging to borrow the security. Even market makers are not exempt from this requirement. @dtcc: So Reg SHO doesn't force them to close out the position, but if they don't, they are prohibited from making any additional short sales without borrowing the shares first? Thompson: That's right. @dtcc: Does DTCC have a regulatory role in naked short selling? What authority does it have to force companies to settle a fail? Thompson: Naked short selling, or short selling, is a trading activity. We don't have any power or legal authority to regulate or stop short selling, naked or otherwise. We also have no power to force member firms to close out or resolve fails to deliver. That power is reserved for the SEC and the markets, be it the NYSE, Nasdaq, Amex, or any of the other markets. The fact is, we don't even see whether a sale is short or not. That's something only the markets see. NSCC just gets "buys" and "sells," and it's our job to try and clear and settle those trades. @dtcc: Why won't you reveal the number of fails to deliver in each position to the issuer of the security? Thompson: There are a couple of reasons. First, we provide that information to regulators and the SROs so they can investigate fails and determine whether there are violations of law going on. Releasing that information might jeopardize those investigations, and we feel they are the appropriate organizations to get that information since they can act on it. Second, NSCC rules prohibit release of trading data, or any reports based on the trading data, to anyone other than participant firms, regulators, or self-regulatory bodies such as the NYSE or Nasdaq. We do that for the obvious reason that the trading data we receive could be used to manipulate the market, as well as reveal trading patterns of individual firms. @dtcc: How does DTCC respond to claims that shares from cash accounts and/or retirement accounts and/or institutional accounts are being put into the lending pool of the Stock Borrow program? Thompson: It is our broker and bank members who control their DTC accounts. They can and do segregate shares that they are not permitted to lend out. Neither NSCC nor DTC monitor or regulate that activity. It is done by the SROs and the SEC. However, there is no requirement that brokers or banks participate in the Stock Borrow program, and neither DTC nor NSCC can take shares from an account unless those shares are voluntarily offered by the broker or bank member. @dtcc: Do you think there is illegal naked shorting going on? Thompson: Certainly there have been cases in the past where it has, and those cases have been prosecuted by the SEC and other appropriate enforcement agencies. I suppose there will be cases where someone else will try to break the law in the future. But I also don't believe that there is the huge, systemic, illegal naked shorting that some have charged is going on. To say that there are trillions of dollars involved in this is ridiculous. The fact is that fails, as a percentage of total trading, hasn't changed in the last 10 years, the staff interview concludes. For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on www.financialwire.netFinancialWire is an independent, proprietary news service of Investrend Information, a division of Investrend Communications, Inc. It is not a press release service and receives no compensation for its news or opinions. Other divisions of Investrend, however, provide shareholder empowerment platforms such as forums, independent research and webcasting. For more information or to receive the FirstAlert daily summary of news, commentary, research reports, webcasts, events and conference calls, click on www.investrend.com/contact.aspThe FinancialWire NewsFeed is now available in multiple formats to your site or desktop, free. Click on: www.investrend.com/XmlFeeds?level=268FOR FULL ARTICLES AND UP-TO-THE-MINUTE NEWS, VISIT: www.financialwire.net The FinancialWire NewsFeed is now available in multiple formats to your site or desktop, free. Click on: www.investrend.com/XmlFeeds/?level=268FinancialWire is an independent, proprietary news service of Investrend Information, a division of Investrend Communications, Inc. Investrend provides a wide range of forums, independent research and webcasting platforms for shareholder empowerment. For more information, Investrend may be contacted at www.investrend.com/contact.aspFor more info about many of the companies above, click on its InvestorPower [tm] page at www.investrend.com/company/list.asp?sPathParam=yesThe Washington Legal Foundation Ad The Washington Legal Foundation has run and ad, "In All Fairness," headlined "What's Up With The SEC?," on the New York Times Op-Ed page today alleging collusion between short sellers and class action plaintiffs' attorneys. More on this story in FinancialWire overnight. ***** You are receiving this because you are a professional broker/analyst/fund manager member of the FirstAlert Network, a public company or IR executive, a member of the media, an investment club officer, or you have signed on at our website to receive notices for NewsNotes, ResearchNotes and ResearchReports or about a specific company. More than 237,000 professionals and opt-in individual investors subscribe to FirstAlert. FinancialWire is a proprietary news originator, and does not distribute press releases nor any paid content. Posts are independent of forums, research and broadcast platforms provided to the shareholders of public companies via an enrollment by any entity, including public companies themselves; however, companies enrolled in Investrend's platforms are generally included in the FinancialWire coverage universe. FinancialWire receives no fees from any enrolled company for any coverage. Such enrollments may not influence the journalistic independence of FinancialWire, and no officers or employees of Investrend Information nor any of its affiliated divisions, nor its parent, Investrend Communications, Inc., may own or trade in the securities of companies under enrollment. Go to www.investrend.com/iciratings.htm for Investrend Research ratings definitions. Audio summaries of many research reports are available at the Analyst Broadcast Network at: www.investrend.com/icisiteanalystbroadcastnetwork.htm. Return to Investrend daily for new alerts about this and other companies followed by Investrend Research analysts, webcasting via Investrend Broadcast or presenting via Investrend Forums, as well as breaking news regarding the financial industry. To subscribe or unsubscribe, or to otherwise communicate with us, click on: www.investrend.com/contact.asp----- Financial Intelligence = Shareholder Empowerment Research / Broadcast / Forums / Information SPECIAL DISCLOSURES: FinancialWire and FirstAlert receive no compensation, but some companies referenced are in Investrend platforms. Full disclosures are contained in each article, in each each press release and report associated with each company, as well as each company's InvestorPower page. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $1,950 per month, and the fees were paid by I/O Magic for six months before it terminated access to the analyst. Enrollment fees for Focus coverage are $2,840, and the fees were paid by Westport Strategic Partners, Inc., which had a marketing relationship with A.P. Pharma. Enrollment fees for Benchmark coverage are $1,195 per month, and the fees are being paid by the Heartland Oil & Gas. There were no fees for the webcast platform. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Charles & Colvard. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Cybertel Communications. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by the ATNG, but has an open invoice for $21,625 remaining on account. Enrollment fees for Focus coverage were $2,840, and the fees were paid by Westport Strategic Partners, Inc., which had a marketing relationship with Environmental Power. Enrollment fees for Benchmark coverage were $1,195 per month, and the fees were paid by the MacReport, which had a marketing relationship with T&G2, for six months. Enrollment fees for the RedChip coverage was paid by RedChip Resources, which received a fee not to exceed $100,000 per year for investor awareness services, and the fees were paid by UTEK. Enrollment fees for the RedChip coverage was paid by RedChip Resources, which received a fee not to exceed $100,000 per year for investor awareness services, and the fees were paid by Magnetek. On the Go Healthcare paid Beacon Street Equity Research $18,000 per year for coverage. concluded:
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 17:02:09 GMT -5
Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Warrentech Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by AVI BioPharma. Enrollment fees for institutional coverage was $1,950 per month, and the fees were paid by Cyber Digital. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Centrex. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage are $25,800, and the fees are paid by Retractable Technologies. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Chartwell. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Rockport Healthcare. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Delta Apparel. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, but after the conversion to a Benchmark single report platform, Discover Capital Holdings paid a total of $8,350. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Osatron Holdings Corp., which is believed to have been a key shareholder, except for an open invoice of $18,000 to the InstaPay and Osatron on account. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400 per annum, and the fees were paid by Unversal Express for two years. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400 per annum, and the fees were paid by the The Investor Relations Company, which had a marketing relationship with Isonics Corp., for six months. Brookmount Exploration Inc. will pay SISM Research $1,750 per month over a two-year period solely to ensure independent coverage.
The fee for Fundamental’s standard coverage is $25,000, and the fee is being paid by Resin Systems. Enrollment fees for the Institutional Research platform is $28,300 per annum. ONE Signature has paid eResearch a fee of C$15,000 to conduct continuous research on ONE Signature Financial. Enrollment fees for “Company of the Week” webcasts are $2,840.00. These enrollment fees were paid by Providential Holdings. At the time of enrollment fees for Institutional is $29,800, and Benchmark coverage was $1,195 per month for year one, and the fees have been paid by Stockgroup Information for two years. PilaGold has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 3,745 to conduct research on it. At the time of enrollment, enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by the VirTra Systems, Inc. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $1,950 per month, and the fees were paid by Scientific Games for six months. Enrollment fees for Benchmark coverage are $14,800, and the fees were paid by Heartland Oil & Gas. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $28,300, and the fees were paid International Monetary Systems. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by AdStar. Enrollment fees for Benchmark coverage are $14,800, and the fees were paid by Ceristar. There were no additional fees associated with the broadcast. Enrollment fees for Benchmark coverage are $1,230 per month, and for the webcast platform, $2,840 total, and the fees were paid by Invisa. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid Investor Communications International, which provided investor relations to Petrogen, except there is an open invoice for $16,800. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by HSPC. Enrollment fees for Focus coverage, plus a webcast were $5,940, and the fees were paid by Strategic Alternatives, Inc., which had a marketing relationship with Hy-Tech. Enrollment fees for Benchmark coverage are $14,800, and the fees were paid by Gastar. Enrollment fees for the RedChip coverage was arranged by RedChip Resources, which received a fee not to exceed $40,000 per year for investor awareness services, and the fees were paid by the IMCOR Pharmaceutical. Enrollment fees for the Institutional research platform are $29,800, which has been paid by Winfield Financial. Groen Brothers is enrolled in the Homeland Security Sector Report coverage. The company is paying the fees of $4,000 per quarter.
concluded:
|
|
GEORGE BUSH
Diamond Miner
shorters beware" your shorts are down"...
Posts: 345
|
Post by GEORGE BUSH on Mar 28, 2005 17:02:26 GMT -5
The fee for SISM coverage was $16,500, and the fees were paid by MIV Therapeutics to SISM. Enrollment fees for Focus coverage are $2,840, and Company of the Week are $2,840, and the fees were paid by Atlantic Synergy. Freewest Resources Canada Inc. has paid eResearch a fee of $CAN 3,745 to conduct research on FWR. Wits Basin Inc. has paid eResearch a fee of $CAN 3,745 to conduct research. AfriOre Ltd. has paid eResearch a fee of $CAN 4,066 to conduct research on AFO. The fee for Fundamental’s standard coverage is $25,000, and the fee is being paid by Datec Group Ltd. Zaruma Resources Inc. has paid eResearch a fee of C$4,066 to conduct research on ZMR. Enrollment fees for the Focus Research platform is $2,840, and enrollment in the Investrend Broadcast “Company of the Week™” platform is $2,840. These enrollment fees are being paid by LocatePLUS. Enrollment fees for the Institutional Research platform is $25,800 per annum. These enrollment fees are being paid by Semotus Solutions. IMI International Medical has paid eResearch a fee of $45,000 to conduct continuous research on IMI for one year. OnX has paid eResearch a fee of $4,200 for research. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Media Sciences. Burcon NutraScience has paid eResearch an annual fee of $29,800 for research. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage was $17,500 per annum, and the fees were paid by AlphaTrade.com. Enrollment fees for the Institutional Research platform is $14,800 per annum. Enrollment fees for “Company of the Week” webcasts are $2,840.00. These enrollment fees are being paid by Far East Energy. Broadview Press Inc. has paid a fee of C$4,280 to Fundamental Research for Institutional Coverage. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,400, and the fees were paid by Vasogen. Trio Gold has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 4,066 to conduct research on it. The fee for SISM coverage was $3,500 and the fee is being paid by GlobeMedia AG, Delta Petroleum's European IR company. Enrollment fees for the RedChip coverage was arranged by RedChip Resources, which received a fee not to exceed $40,000 per year for investor awareness services, and the fees were paid by the Northern Orion. Vedron Gold paid eResearch a fee of $4,800 to conduct research on it. Enrollment fees for the Benchmark research platform are $19,800, which has been paid by 5G Wireless.
Gossan Resources has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 4,066 to conduct research on it. Northern Shield has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 3,800 to conduct research on it. Alpha Gold has paid eResearch a fee of C$7,000 to conduct research on it. Lund Gold has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 4,173 to conduct research on it. Virginia Gold Mines has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 3,800 to conduct research on it. OPENLIMIT paid SISM Research a retainer of $6,750, plus $1,750 per month over a two-year period to provide independent coverage. Fundamental’s standard fee for coverage is $25,000, and Bevo Agra has paid Fundamental’s fee. Radius has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 3,500 to conduct research on it. Dominion has agreed to pay eResearch a fee of C$30,000 to conduct continuous research on Dominion for one year. WorldHeart has agreed to pay eResearch a fee of $US 10,000 to conduct research on WorldHeart. Enrollment fees for the Institutional Research platform is $28,300 per annum. Enrollment fees for “Company of the Week” webcasts are $2,840.00. These enrollment fees are being paid by Rascals International, Inc. Beaufield Consolidated Resources has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 3,800 to conduct research on it. International PetroReal Oil Corporation paid SISM Research a retainer of $5,000, plus $1,750 per month over a two-year period solely to ensure independent coverage. Enrollment fees for the Creative Gaming Focus Research platform is $3,640. These enrollment fees have been paid by Gary Cella, a non-affiliated individual. Orphan Boy Resources has paid eResearch a fee of C$3,900 to conduct research on it. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage were $23,000 per annum, and the fees were paid by Direct Insite. Enrollment fees for the Institutional Research platform are up to $28,300. The Project Group is paying the fees. Enrollment fees in the Investrend Broadcast Company of the Week platform is $2,840. These enrollment fees have been paid by Air-Q Wi-Fi. Enrollment fees for the Focus Research platform are $3,640. These fees were paid by Titanium Corp. Enrollment fees for the Focus Research platform is $2,840. These enrollment fees have been paid by Veltex. The fee for Fundamental’s standard coverage is $25,000, and a fee is being paid by Resverlogix. Boxxer Gold has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 4,300 to conduct research on it. Barker Minerals has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 4,000 to conduct research on it. Foran paid eResearch a fee of C$ 3,800 to conduct research on it. The fee for Fundamental’s standard coverage is $25,000, and a fee is being paid by Con-Space Communications. Sonoroan Energy, as Show-Star, paid Investrend !7,500 for coverage in 2000. Century Mining has paid eResearch a fee of C$ 4,300 to conduct research on it. The enrollment fee for Benchmark coverage is $19,800, and the fee has been paid by Eden Energy Corp. Biophan Technologies paid Beacon Equity Research $18,000 for one year of coverage. My Medical CD paid Investrend $19,800 for Benchmark coverage. Xenomics paid Beacon Equity Research $18,000 for coverage.
Pelangio Mines paid eResearch a fee of C$ 4,300 to conduct research on it. Enrollment fees for Focus coverage is $3,680, and the fees were paid by the Stream Communications. The fee for Fundamental’s standard coverage is $25,000, and the fee is being paid by VHQ Entertainment. CorpHQ presented at an Investrend Forum circa 1998 and paid a fee of $8,500, and Institutional coverage of $17,000. The fee for a Focus report is $3,640 and the fees were paid by the company. Enrollment fees for Institutional coverage is $28,300, and the fees were paid by I-Sector. Azure Resources Corp. paid SISM Research a retainer of $5,000, plus $1,750 per month over a two-year period solely to ensure independent coverage. Fees for Fundamental Research coverage are $5,000 and the fees were paid by Jenex Corp. Enrollment fees for Focus coverage are $3,640 and "Company of the Week" $2,860, which were paid by International Barrier. Enrollment fees for the Focus Research platform is $3,680, which has been paid by Niche Media. IMA Exploration Inc. paid SISM Research a retainer of $5,000, plus $1,750 per month over a two-year period solely to ensure independent coverage. Enrollment fees for the Criterion research platform is $8,940, which has been paid by Capital Growth Financial, LLC, who acted as underwriter on PanAmerican’s recent $11.0 recent offering. Enrollment fees for the “Criterion” research platform is $8,940, which has been paid by International Card Establishment. Deep Well Oil & Gas Corp. paid SISM Research a retainer of $5,000, plus $1,750 per month over a two-year period solely to ensure independent coverage. The fee for Criterion coverage is $8,940, and the fee was paid for Power3 Medical Products by Focus Partners LLC. A fee of less than $25,000 was paid by China Ventures to Fundamental Research to provide professional research coverage. Enrollment fees for the Benchmark research platform are $19,800, which has been paid by Trilogy Capital Partners, the Perfisans Holdings' investor relations agency. Deep Well Oil & Gas paid SISM Research a retainer of $5,000, plus $1,750 per month over a two-year period solely to ensure independent coverage. Enrollment fees for the RedChip coverage was arranged by RedChip Resources, which received a fee not to exceed $40,000 per year for investor awareness services, and the fees are being paid by Caneum. Enrollment fees for the Criterion research platform are $10,940, which was paid by Monico Capital, which provided financing for the company, as part of a program bundling with MoneyTV.net. Enrollment fees for the Wall Street research platform are $39,840, which is being paid by MyOffiz. Amera Resources paid SISM Research a retainer of $5,000, plus $1,750 per month over a two-year period to provide independent coverage. A fee of less than $7,000 was provided to Fundamental by Commerce Resources to conduct research on the company. The fee for Criterion research coverage is $10,940, and the fee was paid by AccuPoll, Inc. fin.
|
|