• About
    • Site Profile
    • Pam Agnew, ABC (editor)
    • Dominic Jones (editor)
  • Contacts
IR Web Report
  • Latest Posts
  • Categories
    • Web Disclosure
    • Annual Reports
    • Quarterly Reporting
    • Presentations
    • Social Media
    • IR Law
    • Governance
    • Shareholder Services
    • Video
    • Mobile
  • Book Store
  • Jobs
Browse: Home / More ballot stuffing on Nasdaq bundling plan?


More ballot stuffing on Nasdaq bundling plan?

By Dominic Jones on December 13, 2006

WHAT is it with Nasdaq and its plan to bundle investor relations services with its listing fees that seems to attract fake supporters?

You will recall that back in October I wrote about how somebody seemed to try to rig a National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI) members poll in Nasdaq’s favor. (See Someone Cheated on NIRI’s Nasdaq Poll)

That incident caused more than a little controversy and now NIRI no longer conducts those polls.

Then a few minutes ago, I noticed that Nasdaq’s secret admirers appear to have struck again. This time in comments on the proposal on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) website.

Take a look at the screenshot below. Notice anything odd?

screenshot

Yes, all four comments are from someone with Scott in their name and they’re all submitted on the same day one after the other. I didn’t notice this on Sunday when we did our story about the many negative comments from listed firms opposing the exchange’s plans.

But while I was visiting the SEC website today to see if they had published the comment I submitted yesterday, it jumped out at me.

All four comments express support for Nasdaq’s proposal. Here are screenshots of the comments:

screenshot

screenshot

screenshot

screenshot

There are similarities in the language in these submissions. They’re also all short and didn’t take much effort. Actually, many of the comments supporting the proposal don’t seem to be the product of much effort or thought, but that’s another issue.

Just to be sure, I thought I would check to see what I could find on Google for the first commenter, Scott Leslie, President of One Good Call. I found no references to such a person or company on Google.

When the NIRI thing happened, I was prepared to laugh it off. It wasn’t a formal poll and it had no bearing on the decision. But I think this is different, not just because it involves the SEC, but because it demonstrates a pattern of dishonest behavior.

Now, the person/s responsible could just as easily be from the camp that is against the proposal. They might be wanting to create the impression that Nasdaq is faking support. That’s possible, but I doubt it because by doing so they could hurt their own cause.

And, of course, Nasdaq could just be a victim of some misguided secret admirer inside or outside of its organization.

I don’t know and, unlike the SEC, I don’t have access to the server logs to check which IP address/es were used to submit the comments.

All I do know is that sleaze has followed this proposal from early on and it makes Nasdaq look bad. If I was at the exchange, I’d be on to the SEC this morning to ask for the IP information so I can put a stop to it if it’s someone in my organization.

Someone needs to beam Scotty up.


Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones (bio) created IR Web Report in 2001. He is a consultant to leading public companies and investor relations service providers worldwide. You can contact him via the contacts page.

Posted in IR News | Tagged nasdaq, NASDAQ OMX, NIRI, SEC

« Previous Next »

Search the Site

Latest Stories

  • Survey finds social media gap between investors, companies
  • SEC’s social media guidance has devil in details
  • Crisis investor relations in the age of social media
  • Private meetings undermine fair disclosure, study finds
  • What makes a good annual report?
  • CEO pushes Reg FD limits on Twitter
  • For IROs, XBRL errors a wake-up call

Get Our Free Email Newsletter

Close
Note: We don't sell or rent our email list. Unsubscribe instructions come with each email.
Investor relations jobs by IR Web Report

Full Disclosure

All articles on IR Web Report are unpaid editorial. We do not charge a fee to outside contributors. Sponsors or advertisers are not automatically entitled to become contributors or receive editorial coverage. We accept contributors based on their individual expertise and experience. Contributors are required to disclose when they write about or refer to any company with which they have a business relationship, either directly or indirectly. If you believe that any contributor or IR Web Report is not living up this policy, please contact us or leave a comment on the relevant post. Editorial integrity is important to us and we take all complaints seriously.

Site Map

  • Home
  • Terms of Use
  • IR Web Report’s Book Store
  • IR News
  • About
  • Contacts

Archives

  • 2013
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001

About IR Web Report

Founded in 2001, we are the world's leading source of information about online investor relations communications. Our core philosophy is that investors' needs must come first or companies' online communications efforts will fail to be effective. More about us

Follow @irwebreport
Feed Subscribe to feed

Copyright © 2001 - 2013 IR Web Reporting International Inc. By using this site you agree to the Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.