On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:46:08 +0100, Charlie Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Am 17.11.2006 um 17:32 schrieb Nigel Frankcom: > >> If the company is still trading in a month I'd be surprised. I >> wouldn't be at all surprised if it's just a shell anyway. >> >> Create the company, run out the spam, then shut it all down before the >> SEC/Local Securities equivalent start the investigation. >> >> From the number of different companies we see in these spam it's >> highly unlikely the SEC et al have the time or manpower to go after >> penny ante (s'cuse the pun) stuff like this. Their concerns are angled >> more towards the bigger, established players in the market. >> >> A few thousand dollars in penny stocks is a tiny drop in the ocean - >> which is probably why it's being pushed so hard. >> >> IIRC someone posted a report address for the sec yesterday, a >> concerted effort on that front might generate far more reaction that >> talking to some sysadmin in China etc. > >If anyone's dumb enough to go along with these schemes then they >deserve all that they get. But hammering the world's legitimate mail >servers with junk (I know we've got more than enough fibre for >probably it all) isn't on. Surely ISP's need to think of more >effective ways of dealing with bots on their networks. Oh, but that >would mean someone agreeing to spend time and money on effective sys >admin. Forget I ever mentioned it! > >Charlie There are always going to be 'less scrupulous' ISPs that will sell to the spammers at premium rates. Since dealing with these ISPs and their admins is a pointless exercise, attack them where they make their money. To trade these stocks the brokers must be registered; I doubt it's a load of them, much more likely to be a small group that include a bent broker or two. Obviously someone who understands how the markets work. The SEC has a great deal of power to deal with people like this so 'killing off' the broker effectively cuts the head off the scheme and would probably drastically reduce the numbers of stock scams. The hard part will be getting the SEC et al to act in the 1st place. Individually the losses will be minimal; aggregated they could end up being a significant amount of money. By keeping the schemes at the level they are, they're probably slipping under the radar for the SEC. For all this to work the companies have to be incorporated and their stocks registered etc. There *is* a paper trail and it's probably not too hard to follow. But then, that's what the SEC get paid for, not us. Another few pennies worth from me and I'll probably have raised the stock on one of them by a couple of percentage points :-D Nigel
