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 : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: StockDung who wrote (17957)7/7/2006 9:08:51 AM
From: scion  Respond to of 19428
 
How Google Checkout Could Threaten PayPal

PayPal's owner, eBay, is taking a long look at Google's new online payment system. It's easy to see why.

By Wade Roush
technologyreview.com

One service, eBay's PayPal, dominates the arena of online payment systems, a place littered with vanquished or teetering foes, from Yahoo's PayDirect to Microsoft's Passport. So when technology bloggers and other Internet watchers learned last week that Google's long-awaited payment-processing system, Google Checkout, didn't even include a person-to-person payment capability, as PayPal does, they quickly dismissed it as a minor threat to PayPal.

"Many popular news sources are hyping the future of Google Checkout as the definitive PayPal killer," wrote Anders Bylund, a columnist for the PC news site Ars Technica. "[But] the official word all along has been that there will be no person-to-person or micropayment solution, and that Google was not intending to compete directly with PayPal. The company has delivered on its promises...eBay can put down that nuclear warhead it had planned to deploy in its defense."

However, it may be too soon to conclude that eBay is safe from attack. Indeed, while PayPal has many functions that Google has not attempted to replicate, eBay itself is treating Google Checkout with caution. In a policy change first noticed by bloggers on July 6, the online-auction giant has gone so far as to ban sellers and affiliated merchants who let their customers use Google Checkout.

In fact, the unveiling of Google Checkout on June 29 could be a disturbing development for rival payment service providers -- just as Google's focus on Web-based productivity tools such as the Writely word processor and Google Spreadsheets has become a threat to for Microsoft. It's possible that Google could steal much of the existing and potential market for "electronic wallet" services from PayPal, and entice millions of users to share their credit card information and shopping habits with Google and its sophisticated targeted-advertising algorithms.

In a further hit to PayPal, an influential analyst with Citigroup, Mark Mahaney, issued a report on July 6 arguing that Google Checkout is faster and easier for consumers to use than PayPal. "As we see it, this speaks volumes about Google product development skills and PayPal's lack of innovation," wrote Mahaney, who lowered his target stock price for eBay from $51 to $40. (Analysts and investors also reacted negatively to news on July 6 that Jeff Jordan, until recently president of eBay's PayPal division, is leaving the company.)

For consumers, Google Checkout amounts to a place to store credit and address information online so they don't have to re-enter it every time they buy something from a Web retailer. With a single click on the Google Checkout button located on the payment pages of participating merchants (which so far include Levi's, Starbucks, Buy.com, Timberland, and more than 80 others), customers can authorize a credit card payment and confirm a shipping address. It's essentially a pan-Web version of Amazon's 1-Click ordering system -- except that Google can, if customers prefer, keep personal information such as e-mail addresses and credit card numbers secret from retailers. Users can also view a history of their Google Checkout purchases and track the status of each order.

For merchants, Google Checkout is a way to attract customers -- or at least that's how Google is marketing it. Similar to the Visa, MasterCard, and American Express stickers on the doors of bricks-and-mortar retailers and restaurants, a special shopping-cart logo appears with the advertisements of companies that use Google Checkout and advertise through Google's AdWords program. The company charges merchants a lower fee than many other payment service providers: $0.20 per transaction plus 2 percent of the total payment, in contrast to $0.30 plus 2.9 percent for PayPal and much higher fees at most credit card companies. And Google is sweetening the proposition by giving Google Checkout participants a healthy rebate on their Google advertising spending; for example, $10 in Google Checkout fees earns a $100 credit toward an AdWords campaign.

That's enough to make AdWords ads essentially free for some smaller merchants -- which means consumers are likely to see the Google Checkout logo appear on many new websites this year. And Google's reputation as a largely benign and trustworthy company may prompt many consumers to sign up for the service, even if it means typing in their address and credit card information one more time as part of the Google Checkout signup process.

In fact, Google Checkout comes with a virtually built-in user base. Many Google users have already entrusted personal information to one or more of the company's numerous online services: Gmail, Google Toolbar, Google Spreadsheets, Google Notebook, Blogger (which is owned by Google), the free photo-storing service Picasa (also owned by Google), Google Calendar, and Google Desktop (for indexing the contents of a hard drive). So it would be a relatively small step to give Google a credit card number and let the company track online purchases, especially when the promised reward is simpler transactions in the future, along with tools like the purchase history and transaction tracker.

PayPal, of course, offers similar purchasing services, and also conceals buyers' credit card information from merchants. Today, some 105 million people have PayPal accounts. It's one of the most common methods for individuals to exchange funds person-to-person over the Internet: PayPal members can send money to anyone with an e-mail address, and the company recently introduced a system that lets cellular subscribers make PayPal payments from their phones. And, unlike Google Checkout, where the money flows only from buyers to merchants, PayPal can be used to request money and to receive charitable donations.

But PayPal has had nearly a decade in which to emerge as a payment system used everywhere on the Web -- and it hasn't. Founded in 1998, the company didn't gain momentum until 2000, when sellers and buyers at eBay began to adopt it as a quick and largely fraud-proof alternative to credit cards, personal checks, and eBay's own internal payment system, called Billpoint.

Today, 70 percent of all PayPal transactions are payments for items purchased on eBay. That has limited its visibility outside eBay. While numerous small Web retailers let customers pay through PayPal, few major online shopping destinations use the system.

EBay may not feel yet that PayPal is in a vulnerable position, but it's certainly keeping tabs on Google Checkout. This week, it added Google Checkout to its list of payment services not permitted for use by eBay buyers and sellers. The company's Accepted Payments Policy states that the company determines whether a payment service is "appropriate for the eBay marketplace" based partly on whether it provides privacy and anti-fraud protection and whether it has "a substantial historical track record of providing safe and reliable financial and/or banking related services."

EBay spokesperson Catherine England says Google Checkout falls short on this second criterion. "As you know, Google Checkout is a week old, so there isn't a lot of clarity as to how people will use it," says England. "We really look for a good history and track record, so we're holding them to the same standard that we would hold any other service. Once they've had some time, we'll probably reevaluate -- but there's no way to speculate until we have more information."



To: StockDung who wrote (17957)7/7/2006 8:27:24 PM
From: scion  Respond to of 19428
 
SEC fines Narwal-linked accountant Winick for forgery
2006-07-04 20:55 ET - Street Wire

by Mike Caswell

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has fined Marvin Winick, a banned Ontario accountant linked to Silver Star Energy Inc. shareholder Sak Narwal, for forgery. The SEC says Mr. Winick issued bogus audit opinions for three public companies, Tekron Inc., Greentech USA Inc. and Information Architects Corp., by forging the signatures of accounting firms in Colorado and Oklahoma.

Mr. Winick, without admitting any wrongdoing, has agreed to $135,062 in civil penalties to settle the allegations. (All figures are in U.S. dollars.)

As reported by The Vancouver Sun in March, Mr. Winick set up three shell companies, which are unrelated to the current SEC case, for Sak Narwal, the largest shareholder in Silver Star Energy. The RCMP raided Silver Star in 2004, suspecting a pump-and-dump, but no charges have been laid.

The SEC's complaint

In a settled civil complaint filed Friday, the SEC says Mr. Winick fraudulently issued audit opinions for Tekron, Greentech and Information Architects, all reporting issuers at the time. Mr. Winick, who was banned in 1992 by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario for professional misconduct, was to prepare the companies' financial results and send them to an outside auditor.

Instead of hiring an independent auditor to overlook his work, the SEC says Mr. Winick forged the signature of an Oklahoma City auditing firm. He apparently presented the financial results as being in perfect order, and filed them with the SEC.

It seems the problem came to light when the Oklahoma firm found its name on filings it did not audit. The firm confronted Mr. Winick, who promised to remove the filings and apparently did. The SEC says he replaced them using more forged audits, this time bearing the name of a Colorado firm.

Like the Oklahoma auditor, the SEC says the Colorado auditor eventually discovered the forged opinions, and wrote a letter demanding its name come off the filings. Mr. Winick's employers, which knew about the Oklahoma problem by this time, fired Mr. Winick.

Along with the fine, Mr. Winick has agreed to a permanent director and officer ban.

The SEC has also filed suit against Luigi Brun, the chief executive officer of Tekron Inc., one of the companies for which Mr. Winick worked. The SEC says Mr. Brun knew about the forged audits.

In a separate administrative proceeding, the SEC has revoked the registration of three private Nevada companies that list Mr. Winick as president.

The Silver Star connection

With the director ban, Mr. Winick will have to resign from at least 13 public companies of which he is listed as a director or officer. Likely included in his resignations will be Easy Com Inc. and Multimod Investments Ltd., which Mr. Winick set up for Sak Narwal, the largest shareholder in RCMP target Silver Star Energy, according to The Sun's March 27 story.

The RCMP's Integrated Market Enforcement Team raided Silver Star's office in 2004. Search warrant documents alleged a pump-and-dump at the Vancouver company. No charges have been laid in that case.

A jailed relative of Sak Narwal, Roman Narwal, was also listed as a shareholder in Easy Com and Multimod in public filings. Roman Narwal is serving a 15-year sentence for drug-related extortion and kidnapping.

Although Mr. Winick did not return calls for an interview Tuesday, he told The Sun in March he did not know who Roman Narwal was and said Sak Narwal had resigned from the companies.

Mr. Winick is the target of a website calling itself Winick Watch. The site lauds itself as "dedicated to protecting the public from the possible financial risks of engaging in business relationships with Marvin Winick." In a cult-like manner, the site lists any news stories, SEC documents and lawsuits that include Mr. Winick.

Mr. Winick sued the website for slander in 2004, but Winick Watch claimed its information was factual and mostly came from public sources. Mr. Winick dropped the suit last February.

<http://list.stockwatch.com/t.aspx?S=2&ID=156&NL=2&N=137&SI=680619&URL=http%3a%2f%2fsales.stockwatch.com>