Mr. Westergaard: I recently mentioned on the SI thread that you were
profiling Planet City (PINC). One guy who is always
critical of Planet City took a few shots at you as well. I responded
that the U.S. Senate disagrees with him, since they asked you to
come and speak re:Y2K --- Do you have a BIO, or brag sheet that I
could present to defend you? P.S. It was post #660 on the SI PINC
thread.
Sir: I have been engaged for 40 years in publishing investment
research on speculative stocks and no one has ever sued me or
questioned my integrity, nor have I ever had a regulatory problem.
My full bio is at www.wbn.com. Thanks for the heads up. My first
response is to note that I consider there to be no greater
tribute than to be known by the enemies I make.
The background of this hostility on Silicon Investor has to do with
the fact that my company, Westergaard Online Systems, Inc., through
its publishing channel, Westergaard Broadcasting Network.com
<http://www.wbn.com> is engaged in a business, the purpose of which
is to help protect companies and their shareholders from anonymous posters engaged in posting purposefully misleading or fraudulent
misinformation at Silicon Investor and other message boards.
This is a service for which we charge corporations as is clearly
spelled out at wbn.com under "Disclaimer" and "About wbn.com" and
elsewhere on the site as well. The reason we charge for the service
is to pay the salaries of analysts, staff, other expenses,
advertising (to begin January), and make a profit projected at 20%
pretax.
Persons who post misinformed, misleading, fraudulent, or just plain
stupid information on message boards find wbn.com to pose a threat,
and I can't say I blame them. Consider the following:
PERSPECTIVE: I began my professional life as an analyst in the late
'50s at Standard & Poor's Corporation. S&P published then a subscriber
based debt rating service run by Dominic DiPalma and two assistants.
It was a marginal business.
One day Goldman Sachs suggested that there was a need for a service
to rate commercial paper, a fast growing newly emerging debt market where GS was the leader but other firms were coming into the business
selling garbage paper and the market wasn't distinguishing between
the good and the bad. GS suggested that issuers of such paper would
pay a fee to have it rated by S&P (and Moody's) and a service to do
so was established.
Problem was, nobody came. Why would corporations put themselves at the
mercy of S&P or Moody's when they could sell their paper in any
event?
Fine, until one day an event occurred...... the Penn Central went
bankrupt. The commercial paper market disappeared overnight. The next
morning the CFOs of dozens of commercial paper issuers were lined up
on the sidewalk at 345 Hudson Street with checks in hand.
Today, Dominic's once three man department has grown to 1200
worldwide servicing corporations prepared to pay a fee to have their
debt rated by S&P and Moody's whose approval they need to market
debt obligations.
Hmmm. So much for those who say "sponsored research" will never be
perceived as credible.
PLUVIA: In August '97 WBN was beta testing a concept -- subsequently
evolved as the WBNcyberStation(TM) -- designed to assist corporations in defining themselves to Internet investors and protecting them from
anonymous attack. Premier Laser Systems (PLSAE) was one of the beta
sites and a third party -- not management but someone with an
interest -- challenged us to see if we could uncover the true
name of an anonymous poster going under the name PLUVIA who was
posting purposefully twisted information hostile to PLSAE.
We posted a $5,000 reward -- our own money -- for information leading
to the identification of the poster and found out thereby who he
was, that he lived in Las Vegas, and that he was a distributor of a
product competive with PLSAE's teeth whitening laser. He was posting
fraudulently in the guise of being an investor when his interests
were quite something else.
Upon our uncovering him, PLSAE proceeded to have counsel issue a
Cease and Desist letter and he appears to have pretty much gone from
the scene. Among his various statements was to question PLSAE's
patent position which was subsequently authenticated. He was actually
calling up dentists and telling them that if they purchased PLSAE's
equipment they could be sued for patent infringement. Nasty stuff.
THE BOARDS GO CRAZY: You have no idea how nuts these Silicon
Investor posters went. They called me a nazi, posted pictures of me in
SS uniform, claimed I was violating Pluvia's right of privacy (I never
revealed his true name and note in return, "To claim violation of the
right of privacy of a 'nom de plume' is an oxymoron.") A newly formed
SI thread, Pluvia vs Westergaard. received 1200+ postings in six
weeks, 95% hostile to me.
It's not surprising that these jokers are angry. If one gets one's
jollies from posting the crap most of these people put up at SI and
other boards, one would of course be upset by the threat a wbn.com
poses.
WBN IS BREAKING NEW GROUND: Five years from now there will be half a
dozen third party research firms such as ourselves engaged in
assisting public companies to maintain control of their "corporate
personae" on the Internet. Shareholders will insist they do so.
Public companies cannot afford to let themselves be hung out to dry
by hostile parties, be they short sellers, ex employees, ex wives,
competitors, or promoters manipulating their shares, whether it be up
or down.
To deal with this problem is what wbn.com is about. For the business
to be successful we will need to have investors believe we are honest,
responsible and qualified. Establishing our credibility will be a
gradual, inevitable process.
P.S. I see "Svejk" has posted #665. I respond as follows:
1. The Motley Fool crowd attacked me for uncovering Pluvia's true intent for the same reasons a did the Silicon Investor crowd. Same problem: WBN represents a challenge to their presumed right to publish at will misinformation, fraudulent information, and smears.
2. Stock Detective is simply mistaken. They criticize us for providing only "blanket" disclosure in defining our relationship to cyberstation licensees. Anyone visiting www.wbn.com will readily see that it is not true. We have had correspondence with Stock Detective and I would expect them to remove that designation simply because it is palpably not the case. In a letter to me from Kevin Lichtman, publisher and editor of Stock Detective, dated Sunday, October 11th, he wrote:
"While you may endeavor to abide by ethical and lawful practices at all times, some of your clients surely do not. What you can do, in our opinion, is to make your disclosure as detailed and as visible as possible and be selective with regards to which companies you represent.
"Having said all that, I'd like to tell you that I believe your reputation is superior to that of most of your peers in the small company public relations industry. I've never known of any instance where your name or that of your company has been associated with hype or other unethical promotions. It's too bad more firms in your industry can't follow your example."
Hmmm..... Svejk? Svejk? Are you listening? You know, Svejk, I ought to get you together with my friend Horace Flashman, great grandson of Sir Harry Flashman of "Flashman At The Charge" and other books by George MacDonald Fraser. You surely recall Flashman as the schoolyard bully from John Brown's School Days!!!
3. As for the statement at WBN Silver Edition that Planet City has no competition, that one got by me and will be corrected. |
