Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (68259)	3/12/2001 10:30:11 AM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 122087

Convicted Stock Swindler Helped Promote Shares of Ives Health Chicago, March 12 (Bloomberg) -- When Ives Health Co. stock was surging earlier this year, an ex-Chicago stockbroker named Wayne Schumacher had a big hand in it. The company, which uses the Internet to sell what its says is a ``breakthrough'' drug for HIV, hired Schumacher to promote its stock in January. He was hired a week after the Federal Bureau of Prisons said Schumacher completed a one-year sentence for securities fraud. Since then, Ives' claims about the medicine's value have been questioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which suspended trading in the company's stock last Monday. Keith Ives, president of Ives Health, said he didn't know Schumacher was a convicted felon when he hired him and an associate, Robert Pierce, of Reno, Nevada, to do public relations and Web site design. Ives, which gave 3 million shares of company stock to Pierce, isn't concerned about Schumacher's background. ``Our company is fine with him,'' Ives said Friday. Schumacher didn't return messages left at the Chicago telephone number he shares with Pierce. The SEC, in stopping trading in Ives Health on the OTC Bulletin Board for 10 days, cited concerns about the truth of the Claremore, Oklahoma-based vitamin company's marketing claims for T- Factor, the drug it claims can halt the progression of HIV. The day of the suspension, Bloomberg News reported the research behind T-Factor was conducted by a former Ives executive, Robert Slayton-Bedeen, who was fired after the company discovered he used multiple aliases. Bloomberg also reported Ives' claim that the World Health Organization tested the drug and found it effective was disavowed by the Geneva, Switzerland-based group. Secret Payoffs Schumacher, 35, pleaded guilty in January, 2000, in federal court in West Palm Beach, Fla., to conspiring to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud. His indictment accused him of taking payoffs from a stock promoter to sell certain stocks to his clients. Released from prison on Jan. 17, he quickly went to work for Ives Health and began distributing press releases, including one on Feb. 15 that announced T-Factor was now available for sale on the Internet. ``Ives Health's T-Factor, an all-natural therapy, increases T- Cell Count in HIV positive patients,'' was the headline. Ives shares soared from 8 cents to a high of 74 cents the next day. The stock, which traded 19.1 million shares in February, was last quoted at 25 cents. And what's Schumacher, who hung his hat at eight different firms over his seven-year career as a stockbroker, doing now? Still working for Ives Health, Ives says. Assistant U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia, who prosecuted Schumacher in Florida, says he is concerned about the former broker's activities because promoting a penny stock may violate the terms of his probation, which forbid him from working in securities-related businesses. ''We're certainly going to be checking with the probation office concerning his present conduct,'' Garcia said. Mar/12/2001 9:39 ET For more stories from Bloomberg News, click here. (C) Copyright 2001 Bloomberg L.P.

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (68259)	3/12/2001 10:46:46 AM
From: crozum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

i agree with you in your comment that all charges must be disclosed on the confirm...it will be most likely stated as "reported price 4 1/4" as a trailer...the customer must then look at the customer net price, i.e. let's say 4 3/8, and then determine that the trade was marked up 1/8 in this example...the trade was actually executed and printed to the tape at 4 1/4 but the compensation received was 1/8 to the firm. my contention is that before anyone goes to arbitration alone and before anyone starts bashing brokers and firms (in spite of their questionable past) charging them with violating any nasd conduct rules, turn the confirmation over, look at the fine print, read what the reported price was, compare that price to the customer net, and then make the judgement as to whether or not there was an overcharge vs. riskless principal markup, rather than rely on an probably-maligned and bitter ex-employee who is most likely unhappy with his/her parting with the firm and will say next to anything regarding the firm's practices. chris