See for yourself: Someone was kind enough to upload the commercial onto YouTube.
According to Boyd, "Pink-sheet companies ConnectAJet and Hear At Last have seen their stock prices jump after their commercials ran, despite having threadbare operating histories....An ad purchase on CNBC can cost a pink-sheet company as little as $20,000 but offers an audience of thousands of well-heeled investors and traders."
It's easy to question the ethics and judgment of a network with CNBC's reputation allowing itself to be used to hype penny stocks. But there's also an argument to be made that, in running the ads, CNBC is playing chicken with Section 17b of the Securities Act:
It shall be unlawful for any person, by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment service, or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof.
CNBC was paid for the advertisement and anyone watching it would be able to see pretty clearly that the commercial is promoting the stock -- Should CNBC have disclosed "the amount thereof" that it received for running the commercial?
I'm not a securities lawyer but it seems like the commercial that ran on CNBC described a security for a consideration received.
It shall be unlawful for any person, by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment service, or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof.
CNBC was paid for the advertisement and anyone watching it would be able to see pretty clearly that the commercial is promoting the stock -- Should CNBC have disclosed "the amount thereof" that it received for running the commercial?
I'm not a securities lawyer but it seems like the commercial that ran on CNBC described a security for a consideration received.
Why do we have a weak dollar?
Holiday hiring slow for retailers
Closing Bell: What sell-off? (AIG, ABK, EPR, MBI, JAVA, ORCL, ERTS)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-29-2007 @ 8:15AM
Marilyn Baptiste said...
This is an investment for someone who wants to invest and does not have enough money to do so. Soon, I am going to be one of them.