Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • G. Calamita on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Gerard Magliocca on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Mike on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Performance of spam stocks – a very non-scientific survey

posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger

I get a fair number of spam e-mails advertising stocks. They’re often penny stocks, and the e-mails often project outrageously high returns (“5 day expected return: 325%”). On a whim, I saved the e-mails that I’ve gotten for the past 10 days, to see how well the spam stocks performed. This is what I found:

April 20: MDBF.PK, then $1.25, “profits of 300% to 500% expected.”

Result: I can’t locate a Yahoo chart going back to April 20. (I don’t think Yahoo keeps charts that long for some pink sheet stocks). (Note: Most of these Pink Sheet stocks – not particularly surprising.) I did locate current price and a 5-day chart. It’s currently trading at .60 . It’s been up to $1.20 in the past 5 days. There’s no indication that it ever came close to the $5 suggested in the spam e-mail.

April 21: SIKY.PK, then trading at 0.26, spam e-mail suggesting “great” returns.

Result: It’s now trading at 0.26; 5 day charts show that it did make it to the 60-to-80 cent range a few days ago.

April 24: KKPT.PK. Then trading at .86, spam e-mail suggested target price at $3.25 in 5 days.

Result: Yahoo has longer charts for this stock, so we can see: The price rose on the day of the spam, going to $1.12. Volume went from 87,000 to over a million, a thirteenfold increase. It peaked a day later at $1.13, and is now back to 90 cents.

April 24: CWTD.OB. Then trading at $1.39; spam e-mail suggested 200-400% profits in the next few days.

Result: This one is actually doing quite well. The spam drove the price from $1.39 to $2.10 in a single day, as volume rose from 62,000 to over 3 million. It peaked a day later, and is now standing at $2.00.

April 26: IKMA.PK. Then trading at 30 cents a share; no target announced, but spam suggested that doubling of value would not be unusual.

Result: Volume went up, from 200,000 to 400,000. Price dropped like a rock. Currently trades at 13 cents.

April 27: PGCN.OB. Then trading at 45 cents; 5 day target of $2.

Result: Appears to be another spam-created spike. Volume shot up, and the stock briefly went over a dollar, shortly after the spam; it’s currently in free fall.

Results: This very non-scientific survey — based only on what’s come into my inbox in the past few days — suggests a few possible take-home points, none of them particularly earth shattering.

First, spam works. Pump and dump works. Someone almost certainly made a lot of money on these stocks by buying them ahead of the spam, and then pumping them with the spam, and then presumably selling when the stock peaked.

Second, spam e-mails do a very good job of generating volume. I knew going in that these sorts of schemes work by generating volume in a usually thinly traded penny stock; still, it was sobering to see volume go from 60 thousand to 3 million in a day – and to note the perfect correlation with the date of the spam e-mail.

Third point (related to the last) is that the old adage is true, there is indeed a sucker born every minute. Three million plus shares worth of suckers for one spam alone (and many, many more for other spams) — all hopping on to a badwagon being promoted by spam e-mails sent by automated programs and authored by “analysts” with names like “Cranach U. Flagellates.” Incredible.

Finally, this short glimpse of spam results drives home a point I already knew (and I really hope you knew as well) — these penny stocks seldom make anyone rich except those who run the scam. Some of these stocks did skyrocket briefly — but the lion’s share of the gain came very early, and so almost certainly went to people who knew about the scheme to begin with. No surprise there.

So nothing earth shattering; still, it’s fun to see old-school common sense points confirmed by a quick check of my own inbox. And yes, you have my permission to forward this post to your Uncle Charlie when he calls you excitedly tell you about the latest surefire stock, e-mailed to him by someone named Cranach U. Flaggellates.


 May 1, 2006 at 3:58 pm   Posted in: Securities   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (6)

  1. Paul Gowder - May 1, 2006 at 6:22 pm

    So here’s the question for stock wizards. Actually, two questions. (And WHY am I posting them on a public blog instead of privately asking someone and using the answers to make money? Dunno. Maybe I’m just contrarian like that.)

    1. Is there any way to place market bets on volume? There’s so many weird stock instruments now, options and futures etc. etc., surely there’s a way to cash in on spikes in the VOLUME of trading. (Perhaps buying shares in broker commissions?)

    2. Can one short-sell on the pink sheets? Say, about 1.5 days after the spams go out?

  2. Bill Sjostrom - May 1, 2006 at 8:01 pm

    Coincidentally, I blogged earlier today about a new SSRN paper on this very topic. See here.

  3. Miriam Cherry - May 1, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    I was just going to say that this looks like quite an interesting topic for a full-length paper. I’d like to take a look at the link you posted, Bill (hi Bill!) but it doesn’t seem to work. I wonder how much is lost in the typical pump-and-dump pink sheet scheme…

    Just as a side note, I wish that I were lucky enough to receive spam email with stock tips. Most of the spam that I receive either offers me viagra, or various other, er, male “enhancements”. Now, there was that one time that I thought I won the lottery, but then I lost the proceeds when I provided bank account information to help an estate recover some money in Nigeria… ;)

  4. Vasu - May 2, 2006 at 8:29 am

    This is bad. You should be using finance.google.com not Yahoo!. :)

    According to the finance.yahoo.com programmer, they haven’t invested any serious time in developing that site for years. Google rocks however..

    –Vasu.

  5. asdf - May 2, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Sorry, overlooked the SSRN link already posted

  6. asdf - May 2, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    But I guess that doesn’t matter because my message didn’t show up. The ssrn paper was based on this:

    http://www.crummy.com/2006/04/13/0

    http://www.crummy.com/features/StockSpam/

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress