I think we are in agreement. I often post that "there is enough scamming to go around. When an opportunity to scam presents itself, scammers will take it."
I find it amusing when posters claim that it is only one type of scam. Being short a stock does not make one inherently honest as we have seen on these very boards.
I am for full disclosure, but that includes full disclosure from companies, from MM's, from hedge funds, etc. I don't see a regulatory problem with having an IR firm that only gives "positives" so long as that is known and the full information is available. I personally don't like companies hiring IR firms, particularly when those firms merely issue fluff PR's and then dump shares. I have often posted that. However, there are many companies that have almost no exposure, good companies, that need a little help getting the word out. I hate the large fees paid in shares. I don't think it should cost more than a few thousand dollars to write, issue and disseminate a PR.
I don't think one has to give both sides in a discussion. There are plenty of people on these boards who defend the industry, the hedge funds and the MM's, and who claim that the only scams are those by insiders and touts and promoters.
I have for many years advocated a new system, whereby all such parties are required to disclose intent and actual selling by insiders, touts, promoters, financers, etc., in advance of such sales. Combined with changes in MM rules to bring our markets into the 21st century, with auction software that does not play "favorites" to moneyed interests, and with limits on manipulative trading by hedge funds and other pooled interests, we could finally have a market that reduces scams. |
