You've been distorting anything and everything having to do with ASTN and me for a long time now -- why stop now?
But do let me correct some basic errors in your thinking. First of all, projections are not facts, they are opinions (or in some cases pure hypotheticals) about what might happen in the future. Westy never stated as a fact that ASTN would be selling for $30 in 3 years -- he showed how it was possible and said that he thought it had an excellent chance of getting there based on some prior experiences he knew about viz a viz Instinet. And he disclosed that he was being paid a cash fee for hosting an ASTN cyberstation, though not in every communication he ever made (the failure to make that disclosure in every communication he published about the companies he was promoting was why he got in trouble). My recollection is that the WBN website had a disclaimer on it noting that WBN received a flat fee for hosting cyberstations, and several (though by no means all) of his message board posts about ASTN made reference to that fee arrangement -- at least that's my memory of it. He was never sued for his errant projections (indeed, if every analyst who has made an errant projection -- whether they were paid directly by the companies they were analyzing, or working for companies providing investment banking services to the companies being analyzed, or owners of -- or short on -- the company's stock, or totally independent -- were sued for errant projections, there would be no end to such lawsuits, because the number of companies that were being projected to do well by their own management and by so-called analysts that have, in fact, tanked in the past year or two -- and I mean major companies, not just start-ups like ASTN -- number in the hundreds, or more . . . . and the number of investors who have lost boatloads of money based on those analysts number in the millions). Just look at JDSU (108 was it's high this year, 153 historical high, current price = 8.35) . . . or Aether Systems (from 122.5 this year, 345 two years ago, to $7.40 now) . . . or Cisco Systems or Hewlitt Packard, or Rambus, or Yahoo, or Ciena, or CMGI or . . . . you name it. The best companies out there are hurting big time, and many of them are in a heap of immediate financial trouble right now. ASTN, it would seem, is in some pretty good company.
Be that as it may, the more important misconception you are peddling is that Westergaard was found guilty of fraud -- when in fact, he was not found guilty of anything. According to the PR, he settled an SEC claim without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, and the settlement was an agreement to one thing -- an injunction that prohibits him from failing to disclose in ALL communications for a client from whom he is receiving compensation that he is, in fact, receiving compensation. Calling that a slap on the wrist would probably qualify as an overstatement, IMO. The injunction as described in the SEC's PR does not bar him from (or punish him for) promotional activity, it does not bar him from (or punish him for) making erroneous projections, it doesn't bar him from (or punish him for) being compensated for promotional activity, and it doesn't even bar him from saying that his analysis is "independent" (which actually was one of the original charges the SEC made). The complaint as described in the SEC's PR did not accuse him of making false statements of fact about companies he was promoting, or making erroneous projections, or of committing fraud. And the final settlement didn't even require him to admit he had done wrong. In short, he was not found GUILTY of ANYTHING. Your description of what the final result was is just flat out false.
Now, if you said "I personally think he committed fraud", that's your opinion, and your entitled to express it, even if you are botching the meaning of the word "fraud" [which, by the way, is a knowingly false statement of a material fact (or a knowing omission of a material fact necessary to makes facts expressed not misleading), which is intended to mislead, has the effect of misleading, is reasonably relied upon by the person to whom it is stated, to that person's detriment, and who suffers damage as a result]. But that is not what you said -- you said that he was found him "guilty" of "fraud" by the SEC, and that it related to when he was promoting ASTN, neither of which is true. ASTN is never even mentioned in the PR, and, to my knowledge anyway, has never been mentioned by the SEC in a single complaint, document or press release relating to Westergaard - not one. And the irony is that your making that false statement is a lot closer to what the word "fraud" means than Westergaard's errant projections about ASTN (or any other company).
As for me, well, saying that my opinion has been that ASTN is "gold" is a ridiculous oversimplification and distortion of the opinions I have expressed, or the body of my writings on the subject. I have had differing opinions of ASTN over the years -- 2 years ago, when the stock rocketed from 1 to 17 over a 7 month period on the strength of SEC approval, a potential merger of the PHLX and NYSE, and a technology-based bull market, my opinion was a lot more exuberant than my current opinion; given the reality of what has occurred in the past 3 years, I am much more realistic about its prospects (at least I think so) -- but without any doubt in my mind, I think it is a serious and legitimate company; that it has a trading system that makes a lot of sense to institutions, and that has a very real chance of ultimate success, even now; that it has a management team that is knowledgable, motivated, capable and street savvy, though far from perfect; and that despite its problems, including most notably the effect that 2 years of delay has had in terms of dilution and the need to get unfavorable financing in order to survive, it still has a very good shot at survival and success. Oh yeah -- I also think that you have grossly underestimated them and their chance of ultimate success, that your analysis has been very one-dimensional, and that you have distorted (and in some cases flat out lied) about factual matters concerning the company and its management.
As for who sold at .20, I don't who it was, but it wasn't me. I bought 11,500 shares yesterday, some for .23 and some for .24. I have done a lot of buying at these levels, because I think ASTN will make it, and in order to capitalize on that, I needed to get my average price down (it is much lower than it has ever been). It is risky, to be sure, but I can afford the risk, and think it is a good strategy for somebody who believes the copany will ultimately make it. I have not suggested to anybody that they do the same as I do, nor would I -- people need to make their own decisions -- I am just putting my money where my mouth is. And I have spent a lot more of my time recently doing things -- family things, enjoying life, professional obligations, etc. -- that are lot more important than posting 24/7 on internet message boards. But I am still able to express my opinion when the mood suits me, as it does now, and when I can find the time. But, Mary, it's just my opinion, as it has always been -- and certainly not EVER a knowingly false statement of fact. You might want to expend a little more effort at understanding the distinction. Clearly, it escapes you.
MST |
