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.

   Microcap & Penny StocksDIGITCOM (DGIV-OTC-bb)Information Thread

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: ronayre who wrote (497)7/8/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: Dolfan
   of 530
That's been posted a few times today already wrong


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Dolfan who wrote (498)7/8/1999 10:21:00 PM
From: Howard C.
   of 530
Summary of Rule 15c2-11


Quotations can be integral to fraudulent schemes
involving microcap securities. Retail brokers "hyping" a
microcap security may refer to a market maker's
quotation when representing the security's value to a
potential customer. The Commission is concerned that
many market makers for unlisted securities may publish
quotations without reviewing current financial and other
information about the issuer.

Microcap securities often are thinly traded and
their issuers have minimal or no assets. Many of
these securities trade in the unlisted
over-the-counter market, i.e., they are not listed on
an exchange or Nasdaq, but are quoted in systems
like the NASD's OTC Bulletin Board or the National
Quotation Bureau's "Pink Sheets."


In February 1999, the Commission reproposed
amendments to Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act to
help curtail abuses in the offer, sale and trading of
microcap securities. The amendments are intended to
have broker-dealers review fundamental information
about the security's issuer before they publish
quotations. The amendments also will help to improve
the quality of information about smaller, lesser-known
issuers and foster greater access to this information by
investors. A prior version of the amendments was
proposed in February 1998. The comment period for the
reproposal expires 30 days after its publication in the
Federal Register.

How Rule 15c2-11 Works Now

Rule 15c2-11 requires broker-dealers to review current
information about the issuer before publishing quotations
for that issuer's securities. Broker-dealers must have a
reasonable basis for believing that the information is
accurate and was obtained from a reliable source. After
one broker-dealer has published quotations for a security
for at least 30 days, other broker-dealers can publish
quotations for the security without reviewing information
about the issuer (i.e., they can "piggyback" onto the
quotes of the first market maker). Broker-dealers
thereafter can quote indefinitely without reviewing any
issuer information (unless the Commission suspends
trading in the security).

Reproposed Amendments

The reproposed amendments make significant changes
to the scope of Rule 15c2-11 to focus on the type of
quotations and securities that are used in fraud
schemes. For example, the reproposal will require the
first broker-dealer to review the specified issuer
information before initiating a priced or unpriced
quotation for an unlisted OTC security. Thereafter, any
broker-dealer publishing a priced quotation for the
security for the first time must review current
information about the issuer (i.e., "piggybacking" will be
eliminated). A broker-dealer publishing priced quotations
also will have to review the issuer information annually.
The reproposal will require broker-dealers to document
their Rule 15c2-11 review and make a record of any
significant relationships they have with the issuer or
others, including the receipt of any compensation to
make a market. Also, the reproposal focuses Rule
15c2-11 on OTC microcap securities by excluding the
securities of larger issuers.

The information that broker-dealers must review covers
issuers that file periodic reports with the Commission
(i.e., reporting companies), those issuers that file
periodic reports with other government agencies, and
those issuers that do not file any periodic reports (i.e.,
non-reporting companies). The information about
reporting companies is readily accessible through the
Commission's EDGAR system. For non-reporting
companies, broker-dealers will have to obtain more
information than Rule 15c2-11 currently requires,
including more information about the issuer's insiders,
control persons, and promoters, and about recent
significant events involving the issuer. Broker-dealers
will have to provide the information to customers and
other broker-dealers upon request, as well as to any
information repository. The reproposal establishes a
procedure for recognizing information repositories to
collect and distribute Rule 15c2-11 information.

The reproposal targets the unlisted microcap securities
market. By enhancing the information reviewed by
market makers and narrowing the scope of the Rule, the
reproposal should provide more efficient and effective
mechanisms to deter fraud and manipulation in the OTC

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Howard C. who wrote (499)7/8/1999 11:21:00 PM
From: ~digs
   of 530
So as I understand it, the public will be getting information from the market makers. Sure has been a long time coming. I hope the specifics require some clue as to a stock's trade balance as well. If they really wanted to clean it up they'd also require a running tally of shares sold short. Now that would curb manipulation! Enough of this double (or more) volume count and all the other bogus which helps fuel the mystery about a stock's real direction. When does this rule take effect?

Rub-a-dub-dub, I gotta grub <g>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: ~digs who wrote (500)7/8/1999 11:52:00 PM
From: Howard C.
   of 530
It looks like the (weaker) rule is in affect NOW, and the newer, stronger proposed rule is under consideration. So I suppose they are still under the weaker rule, which, however, requires full disclosure to resume trading.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Howard C. who wrote (501)7/9/1999 12:17:00 AM
From: ~digs
   of 530
I should think the proposed rule would at least be required while making a market in reporting companies. Gathering info on one that is not can be a daunting task as we all know. The Commission should start by making a distinct separation between non-reporting and reporting companies. The initial enforcement of the new rule on the latter will definitely help differentiate the two. Not only that, but it would also provide further encouragement for non-reporters (with good intentions) to get their filing over with.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: ~digs who wrote (502)7/9/1999 9:53:00 AM
From: Howard C.
   of 530
They do make a distinction, it's written in the writeup I posted. Yes, it's more daunting for non-reporting, but nonetheless they are required to obtain information before trading resumes.

Oh, sorry, Good Morning everyone.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Secret_Agent_Man who wrote ()7/19/1999 9:55:00 AM
From: Zack Lyon
   of 530

If (and I say IF) DGIV can pull this thing off. Satifying the SEC and more importantly, the investors of the company, then the potential here is extremely exciting and almost uncomprehensable.

Just take a look:

Investors who own ACCR ..... OR DGIV
are ahead of the game. Sorry for posted the same article
direct from the scanner without checking the spelling.

Why long-distance Internet calling is about to take off

How can Qwest Communications Corp. get away with charging just 7.5c a minute any time for long-distance calling- the ultra-aggressive pricing it announced on Dec. 15? For one thing, according to President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph R Nacchio, "Long distance is still the most profitable business in America, next to importing illegal cocaine." As head of longdistance marketing for AT&T until last year, he should know.
Actually, Qwest can make its audacious offer-and still match AT&T'S 17% to 20% net margins- because it sends its traffic over a private fiber-optic network using Intenet technology. That method, says Nacchio, is far more efficient than that of the conventional carriers. Indeed, if Qwest makes its mark in long distance, it won't be for undercutting AT&T's best all-day rate by 50%- it will be for proving that Internet-based calling can steal significant amounts of traffic from ordinary longdistance circuits.
EASY TO USE. Qwest's offer heralds the coming of age of Internet telephony. Just a couple of years ago, making phone calls over the Internet was a challenge reserved for computer whizzes. Consumers still will have to dial a few extra digits to make cheap calls. But now, improved PC-based software and routers make it possible for Internet service providers to accept standard telephone and fax calls and send them over the Internet or private data networks and then back to the conventional phone network.
As a mass market develops, companies such as AT&T could lose millions of customers and billions in revenue to Internet calling. "In the next 24 months, we will see a rapid migration," predicts Nacchio. Between 1998 and 2001, as much as $8 billion could be lost to Internet telephony, says Sirn Hall, vice president of research at Action Information Services of Falls Church, Va. "Internet telephony is going from novelty to mainstream next year," agrees Jeffrey Kagan of consultants Kagan Telecom Associates.
Besides being more efficient than standard voice networks, which consume bandwidth even when there is silence during a call, the new networks also bypass conventional long-distance carriers, who must pay local-access charges and taxes. Such fees make up 40% of the typical long-distance charge, Hall notes.
Unlike the pioneers of Internet telephony, bigger companies like Qwest mostly route traffic over their own networks. That lets them manage capacity to avoid the scratchy sound and half-second delays of some Internet phone setups.
Qwest isn't the only company with big ambitions in Net calling. WorldCom Inc.'s Internet division, UUNet, is taking aim at the $92 billion fax market. Early next year, it will offer nationwide faxing for 10c a minute, compared with the typical business rate of 15c a minute. International faxes to Britain will cost 19c a minute, half the average rate now.
Denver-based Qwest, which is building a $2 billion nationwide fiber-optic network, will offer its 7.5c rate on calls anywhere in the continental U. S. starting in late January in nine western cities. The network will expand to 125 markets in early 1999, when Qwest's national network is scheduled to be completed. Qwest plans fax, videoconferencing, and other services.
Established long-distance providers are making their own forays with the new technology. In August, AT&T began offering domestic and long-distance calls from Japan at 40% off normal rates. Japan's Kokusai Deni Denwa Co. created a subsidiary offering similar services worldwide on Dec. 16. MCI Communications Corp. and Deutsche Telekom are running trials.
While the data networks will help cut domestic long-distance rates, the big impact will be on international calls. The average long-distance call in the U. S. costs about 13c a minute, but the average international price is 89c, Hall says. The gap has little to do with the extra cost of an international call, which is marginal. Rather, it reflects the pricing power of a small group of suppliers.
Hall predicts that phone company revenues per minute on international calls will fall more than 20% annually through 2001 and continue to decline. "The wheel has been set into motion," says Hall. Nobody knows how far it WM spin, but at this point, it looks as if consumers will be the winners.
By Steven V Brull in Los Angeles, with Peter Elstrom in New York

Qwest's Nacchio calls long distance "the most profitable
business in America next to 'importing illegal cocaine"


P.S. Nobody can beat ACCR business and pricing model. Not even goliath Qwest.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Zack Lyon who wrote (504)7/19/1999 10:07:00 AM
From: Howard C.
   of 530
One step at a time. Let them get their paperwork in order and start trading again. I can't even think about anything else.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: ronayre who wrote (497)7/19/1999 10:32:00 AM
From: michael john stout
   of 530
Wow. Not good.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: ronayre who wrote (497)8/16/1999 1:33:00 PM
From: Leroyt
   of 530
Any further updates on DGIV??

TIA and
later, leroyt

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10