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


To: scion who wrote (88979)12/29/2004 11:38:24 AM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 122087
 
DAVIDSON CLAIMS SEC LEAKED INFO TO CAROL REMOND. LOL MAYBE SHE JUST GLEENED IT?

=====================================================

"In this respect, it is suggestive that the SEC apparently leaked its complaint about Agora to Remond, who cooperated by writing a story trumpeting the SEC's effort to discredit me and these good companies."

Dear Vantage Point Investor,

You may be as startled and upset as I am by the sudden collapse in the price of GeneMax (GMXX), which has tumbled in the last nine trading days. The question is, why? I can't pretend that I fully understand the answer. But I have a disturbing guess. It appears that the naked short-sellers who have counterfeited millions of GeneMax shares in an attempt to destroy the company have enlisted powerful help.

In theory, the Securities and Exchange Commission is a regulatory body charged with maintaining the integrity of public securities markets in the United States. In reality, the SEC is like any other government agency. It responds to powerful entrenched interests. It abhors bad publicity, rewards its friends and punishes its critics.

Unhappily, the SEC also lies. I know because the SEC field office in Utah has lied about me. And I suspect that these lies are the culmination of a carefully laid plan to discredit GeneMax and punish the company for raising troublesome issues about naked short selling, which has also embarrassed the SEC.

If you have been a subscriber to Vantage Point for any length of time, you are no doubt aware that I am a critic of "electronic counterfeiting," the process by which some investment banks, market makers and broker-dealers drive down the prices of Nasdaq Bulletin Board companies by selling unlimited quantities of shares they don't own. Since stock prices are determined by supply and demand, allowing unlimited counterfeiting of stock essentially guarantees that the stock becomes worthless.

Of course, a company whose shares are worthless won't last long. It is unable to raise money if its stock is worthless. All too often, such small companies are driven into oblivion by electronic counterfeiting. When we are slogging along with a weak economy, I consider it almost criminal negligence that the government would permit investment banks, market makers and broker-dealers to weaken the economy further by destroying small companies that could otherwise be a major fountain of growth.

Why would the government let this happen? I don't think it is necessarily a Grand Conspiracy with a capital "G." But the bad guys have managed to control most of the news about "electronic counterfeiting." And perversely, they also seem to have the regulators on their side.

I had a painful lesson in this reality at the beginning of this week when I learned to my astonishment that the Utah office of the SEC had tarnished my name by accusing me of failing to disclose an interest in two investments that I recommended in Vantage Point Investment Advisory. Their exact charge is as follows:

"Among the issuers promoted in this manner have been GeneMax Corp. and Endovasc Ltd., Inc. DAVIDSON is an officer, director and, indirectly, a substantial shareholder of these two issuers. Neither the soliciting e-mail nor the subsequent company report discloses DAVIDSON's relationship to the companies."

This is total rubbish. I deny any impropriety. Indeed, the charges are remote from the facts.

As you will know if you subscribed to Vantage Point last summer, I fully disclosed my role as a founder, director and officer of GeneMax when I recommended the company and its promising treatment for cancer. And I also disclosed a special relationship with Endovasc. I am not an officer or director of Endovasc. I have a few shares that I received in exchange for assigning my rights in what could be a valuable patent to the company.

To be sure that I wasn't missing something, I had my attorney review the record. He concluded that my disclosures are complete: "I spent this afternoon reviewing Agora marketing copy for Vantage Point and the newsletters and have verified that the charge that you failed to disclose your personal interest in GeneMax is completely false." Agora will be filing a motion to dismiss the SEC's baseless complaint.

I fail to see how anyone of good faith who reviewed the record could possibly construe it as the SEC apparently has. Although I can't prove it, I have concluded that the SEC, or at least some of its personnel, were more offended by my criticism of electronic counterfeiting than they are by the abuse itself -- which causes you and other investors hundreds of billions in losses. In fact, the costs of electronic counterfeiting are much higher than those entailed in the accounting scandals which have garnered so much attention. Nonetheless, instead of correcting these abuses, the SEC has gone out of its way to rope me into a doubtful complaint that they have developed against another Agora publication -- a product to which I have no connection other than a passive one as a minority shareholder in Agora.

Nor do I take it to be entirely a coincidence that while I have recommended more than 30 investments in Vantage Point over the past 16 months, my reputation is being tarred in respect to just two companies, GeneMax and Endovasc. These two companies have one thing in common, in addition to the fact that both have promising medical innovations that could ease much suffering and save many lives. Both have been at the forefront of legal action to combat the abuse of electronic counterfeiting of their shares. But these efforts have hardly earned them the friends they should. Rather than garnering applause, their efforts to confront the abuse of electronic counterfeiting of their shares has made both companies the focus of negative publicity.

In particular, one writer, Carol S. Remond, undertook to paint a negative picture of both companies, publishing what bordered on outright lies. For some reason known only to others, the SEC appears to have adopted Remond's text in defense of the electronic counterfeiters. In this respect, it is suggestive that the SEC apparently leaked its complaint about Agora to Remond, who cooperated by writing a story trumpeting the SEC's effort to discredit me and these good companies.

I wanted to write to you immediately when I got this startling news to tell you that I will not be cowed by these Machiavellian tactics. I will continue to raise important issues of investor protection that the SEC appears to wish to duck. I do so with faith that the truth will eventually triumph, the evil of electronic counterfeiting will be curtailed, and the integrity of public security markets restored.

Or to put it another way, if powerful people are so keen to discredit my criticism of electronic counterfeiting that they will orchestrate an entirely bogus charge of the kind carried on the wires against me this week, that itself indicates that more light needs to be shed on the shadowy activities they are trying to protect.

But, on to the status of your GeneMax holdings... Absolutely nothing about this company or its exciting immunotherapy development has changed and would warrant this share price decline. In fact, in an independent study commissioned by the company, it was determined that if GeneMax were funded as low as at $1.50 per share, and assuming that its products prove to work as well in humans as they have in animals, the present value of the stock would be $420 per share, notwithstanding dilution. GeneMax remains a fundamentally sound company and a tremendous buying opportunity at these levels. I recommend that you increase your GeneMax shares, as well as those in Endovasc (EVSC.OB). And, may I reiterate, I am a shareholder in both companies.

And, if you are as concerned as I am about electronic counterfeiting and its effects on the dynamic young companies that must fuel our country's future growth (as well as your portfolio), I urge you to write your congressman. You can also register your concern with the National Association Against Naked Short Selling (http://www.nakedshortselling.com),, which is taking up the fight for companies and investors alike.

Sincerely,

James DAVIDSON



To: scion who wrote (88979)12/29/2004 11:58:11 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 122087
 
The mighty Taglich & JM Dutton get WSJ treatment, lol:

=============================================

ANALYZING THE ANALYSTS

See complete coverage of the heightened scrutiny of stock analysts at wsj.com/analysts

Amid Shrinking Research Pool,
Companies Buy Their Coverage

Faced With the Prospect of Being Ignored,
Public Firms Pay Fees for Analyst Reports
By SUSANNE CRAIG
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Friedman's Inc. became a Wall Street orphan last year when ABN Amro Bank NV, the only major financial firm to publish research on the jeweler's stock, closed its U.S. stock-analysis operations.

But Friedman's didn't go begging for other research coverage -- it went out and bought some.

The small Savannah, Ga., firm turned to J.M. Dutton & Associates, which for a flat annual fee of $25,000 will publish research on almost any publicly traded company. Founder John Dutton says he doesn't guarantee positive ratings, though 86% of his firm's clients that are rated receive either "buy" or "strong buy" ratings or some similar variation. And clients like Friedman's say they don't mind that it looks like they are paying for bullish coverage. Says Friedman's Chief Executive Officer Bradley Stinn: "We just want people talking about us."

Critics say investors should take such "bought" coverage with a grain of salt. "It's a lot like using an online dating service -- you wonder what is wrong with them," says Henry Hu, a corporate and securities law professor at the University of Texas. "You don't see Cameron Diaz putting herself online to find a date."

It's a fact of life on Wall Street. With 6,384 publicly traded companies on the Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange alone, you need research analysts to cut through the clutter and get the word out to investors. But more companies are being shut out. Wall Street research departments are being pared as firms struggle amid falling revenue and regulatory overhaul that no longer will allow them to pay for research with investment-banking revenue. During the past two years, research coverage for U.S. companies dropped about 20%, to 4,189 firms, according to Multex Data, a research firm.

Figures tracked by the Nasdaq Stock Market, where many small stocks trade (as well as some of the largest ones), show that 44% of its 3,611 companies have no analyst coverage at all, and an additional 14% are covered by just one analyst. For instance, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. covers 1,848 companies, down 17.7% from September 2001. And Deutsche Bank AG recently discontinued research coverage of Charles Schwab Corp. because an analyst left.

Firms that get paid to publish reports have been around for years. And most independent research firms generate cash by selling their stock analysis to big institutional clients. But more companies seem to be willing to pay for research today as Wall Street's coverage universe shrinks.

Taglich Brothers Inc., which has an investment-banking arm as well as individual and institutional clients, began offering companies research for a fee in 1999. All clients pay a $1,750 monthly fee, plus a $5,000 retainer. Its client base has grown from just 15 clients in 1999 to 50 today.

Other firms are just starting out. New York-based Chatsworth Spelman Associates Ltd. was founded three months ago and charges companies $15,500 annually for coverage. President Guy Cohen says the company's analysts work on retainer and like other firms of its ilk, it says it doesn't guarantee a rating. He says he hopes to benefit from the regulatory settlement that will force Wall Street firms to distribute independent research.

The trend is part of the broader fallout from new regulatory scrutiny on Wall Street research. Regulators have alleged that securities firms issued overly rosy research reports simply to land more-lucrative investment-banking business. Under a regulatory settlement announced in December, most of the nation's largest securities firms will be required to pay a total of $450 million over five years to buy stock reports from independent-research firms that don't do investment-banking business.

Securities regulators will designate as many as 10 independent research firms that will provide stock reports to brokerage firms, which will be required to provide independent research to investors alongside their research.

J.M. Dutton, based in El Dorado Hills, Calif., was founded two years ago and so far nearly 50 companies have paid more than $25,000 each for one year of research coverage, primarily small-capitalization firms such as Leather Factory Inc. and Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. J.M. Dutton currently has no "sell" ratings, just four "neutral" ratings and a handful of companies where a research rating is pending. The rest rate "strong buy," "speculative buy" or some variation. Mr. Dutton says he is unlikely to pick up coverage on companies the firm doesn't like, which is why it doesn't have any sell ratings.

In addition to research, J.M. Dutton organizes investor roadshows for companies. Mr. Dutton concedes that his firm has benefited from the bear market and stricter regulatory environment. "I couldn't have asked for a more favorable event," he says. "All these services are paid for one way or another, and thanks to the regulatory environment it is all out in the open."

More than what the analysts write about them, clients like Friedman's Mr. Stinn say they are hoping J.M. Dutton's research will increase their profile, and trading, among institutional investors. It seems to have worked: In the month after J.M. Dutton launched coverage in November 2002, the firm says Friedman's average daily trading volume jumped 11.6% to 78,000 shares a day. Its stock price increased almost 12% to $8.89 in the first month of coverage. In 4 p.m. Nasdaq Stock Market trading Tuesday it was at $9.95, up 29 cents.

Scott Johnston, chairman and chief investment officer of Sterling Johnston Capital Management, which has $600 million under management, says he keeps 10 to 12 independent-research firms, including J.M. Dutton, on retainer, paying anywhere between $15,000 and $50,000 each for their research.

"We go to five or six different sources for information," says Mr. Johnston. "We don't mind if the issuers are paying. You just need to be aware of the fact a company is paying for the research, just as you need to know if an analyst's firm has an investment-banking tie."

Write to Susanne Craig at susanne.craig@wsj.com

Updated March 26, 2003