SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Meet Gene, a NASDAQ Market Maker -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Janice Shell who wrote (591)8/16/2000 10:01:17 PM
From: gene_the_mm  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1426
 
I POSTED THIS ON THE RB BOARD...

The following is MY opinion on the OTC BB issues and short selling in general:

You cannot make short-selling illegal for the reasons everyone else here stated -- liquidity.

While I would agree with a short sale 'cap', especially for OTC BB stocks, you NEED short selling to take the other side of many, many trades.

What do you think happens when you buy stock from a market maker or even through an ECN on any NMS stock? My guess is at least 50% of the time the MM would be affecting a short sale (whether he has a customer order in-hand or not), even with the manning rule, he would SELL the stock first and then buy it at the same price from his customer. During even this brief period he would be short (so technically if it is illegal he could not do this). If he then has to BUY the stock first only to have the buyer CANCEL their order what then? The MM isn't their to go at risk on automatic pair-off orders.

Essentially what your group would like would be short-sale reporting and a short-sale 'cap' for MM's. While I am not sure what the 'powers-that-be' will do, I for one would agree with and have no problem seeing those two things come to fruition. However, if we are going to put the MM's under the microscope, the same MUST be done for these ruthless, fleabag companies whose only source of revenues is selling more stock. We must 'take out the trash' and keep a very close eye on the activity of such companies as well. Some of these ridiculous PR releases they tout as news (not naming names) should be illegal as well - among other activities.

My question is, why doesn't the MMM group also want some kind of COMPANY reporting reform? In my opinion, it appears that some of the 'mouthpieces' for this group have it in their best interests NOT to have any reform on that side of the fence (perhaps some of those who work for PR companies themselves and NEVER address company wrongdoing). Does anyone agree that some of these company's only source of revenues is selling more stock? Shouldn't such a ponzy scheme be forced off of the OTC BB so that they don't harm any more innocent investors? Of the 2000 or 3000 that were removed, STILL far too many fleabags are hanging around the OTC BB. And furthermore, how about educating the innocent investor about the DANGERS of investing in the OTC BB? How about that the majority of these stocks are on the OTC BB for a good reason, and simply are NOT suitable investments for the bulk of people who invest in them.

Just my thoughts folks... I think if the MMM group wants to do the right thing they need to look at BOTH sides of the coin and reform BOTH of these issues, right?

All the best,

-- Gene



To: Janice Shell who wrote (591)8/18/2000 3:24:35 PM
From: Arcane Lore  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1426
 
No doubt for the RB conspiracy theorists, the following probably reflects the market makers striking back (Merger Communications registered the domain name otcnn.com - see siliconinvestor.com.

From today's SEC Digest:

SEC FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST HOUSTON INTERNET STOCK PROMOTION FIRM

The Commission announced that on August 15 it filed a civil complaint against Merger Communications, Inc. and its two owners, Jukka U. Tolonen and David A. Drake of Houston, Texas. The complaint alleges that Merger distributed press releases and other communications via the Internet touting numerous Over The Counter (OTC) and NASDAQ quoted stocks without properly disclosing that the companies compensated Merger.

Merger Communications, Inc. is a Houston, Texas, based "financial promotion" company.

Jukka U. Tolonen, age 35, is a citizen of Finland, residing in Houston, Texas, and owner and president of Merger. Tolonen moved to Houston in 1995 to start Merger.

David A. Drake, age 37, is a resident of Houston, Texas, and executive vice president of Merger.

The SEC alleges that in press releases and mass facsimile and e-mail distributions, Merger distributed highly favorable information concerning the issuers that was intended to create immediate increases in the trading volume and share-price of the issuers' stock. On its website and in communications with prospective clients, Merger boasted that its services often resulted in immediate increases in volume and share-price appreciation for its clients' securities. As compensation for its promotional efforts, Merger and its principals received shares of the touted issuer's stock. The amount of shares received was dependent upon the share price increase during Merger's promotional efforts.

With respect to many of its touts, Merger did not disclose that its promotional and touting activity was bought and paid for by the company whose stock was being touted and that its investment advice, therefore, was not disinterested. For other touts, Merger disclosed generally that it "may" be compensated in stock or that it was hired by the issuer, but it did not fully disclose the nature and amount of compensation.

The SEC also alleges that Merger's promotional efforts had the intended effect of increasing the issuer's stock price. For example, after Merger's promotion of one OTC stock, PinkMonkey.com, the company's shares increased 400% in the first two days after the dissemination of Merger's promotional release. In another instance, shares of another Merger client, Clearworks Technologies, Inc., increased 66% in the three days following Merger's tout of the company's stock. Typically, however, the impact of Merger's efforts was short lived, and the price of its clients' stock returned to the pre-tout price within a few days.

Merger, Tolonen and Drake, without admitting or denying any of the allegations of the SEC's complaint, simultaneously agreed to settle the charges that they violated the anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws. Under terms of the settlement, each of the defendants will be permanently enjoined from future violations of Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. In addition, the proposed judgment orders Merger to pay a civil penalty of $50,000 and Tolonen and Drake to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 each.

Investors are advised to read the SEC's "Cyberspace" Alert before purchasing any investment promoted on the Internet. The free publication, which alerts investors to the telltale signs of online investment fraud, is available on the Investor Assistance and Complaints link of the SEC's Home Page on the World Wide Web www.sec.gov. It can also be obtained by calling 800-SEC-0330.

Investors are encouraged to report suspicious Internet offerings (or other suspicious offerings) via e-mail to enforcement@sec.gov. A user friendly form to assist you in making a report is available at the SEC Hope Page www.sec.gov. Investors can also mail a report to SEC's Enforcement Complaint Center, Mail Stop 8-4, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. [SEC v. Merger Communications, Inc., Jukka U. Tolonen, and David A. Drake, Defendants, Civil Action No. H-00-2791, USDC, SDTX/Houston] (LR-16656)

sec.gov