SEC Gives Alleged Stock Manipulators Slap on Wrist

In this recent final judgment, issued yesterday (September 17, 2007), the SEC revealed what is wrong with its enforcement efforts against penny stock manipulators. There was no punitive fine; the accused were only required to give up their profits. This was despite the “egregious nature” of the offenses. If I were to steal $100 from my neighbor I would be ordered to pay restitution plus a fine (often larger than the restitution), and yet these people allegedly stole hundreds of thousands of dollars and they paid no penalty besides giving up their ill-gotten gains and promising not to do it again.

The Court ordered Barnwell to disgorge $31,700 and prejudgment interest thereon. Casias was ordered to disgorge $334,097. Keener was ordered to disgorge $162,000 and was permanently barred him from acting as an officer or director of any publicly traded company. The Court did not order penalties.

Disclosure: I believe that the SEC is incompetent. I have never committed fraud or any other securities violations.

Continental Fuels: The Most Overvalued Penny Stock I’ve Ever Seen

It is Not Fraud if There are No Lies

Dictionary.com defines fraud as “deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.” It has been more succinctly defined as “implicit theft” by Murray Rothbard, among others. The key to fraud is that deception leads to the deceiver gaining economically in a direct transaction with the deceived. Many unlisted penny stocks toe the line on fraud. Management, getting paid large salaries (and tons of stock options) despite crummy financial performance, hypes up the stock, always offering overoptimistic predictions of future performance. Oftentimes management pays ‘independent’ analysts large sums to cover the company. This leads to gullible investors paying out large sums for the stock. When management’s glowing predictions are later belied by stark reality, the investors lose their socks and the executives live happily ever after.

What would happen if management of a worthless penny stock were completely honest about how worthless the company truly was? In that case, there would be no fraud, but anyone buying the stock would be an utter fool. I found a company like this: Continental Fuels (OTC BB: CFUL.ob, $1.70). As of August 13, the company had 571.6 million fully diluted shares outstanding. That gives the company a market cap of $972 million. What do investors get for that $972 million? Not much. They get total assets of $3.8 million, a stockholder’s deficit of $1.1 million, and for the most recent quarter, sales of $5.7 million and an operating loss of $560k. (See the 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 for details.)

First, I should detail the shares outstanding–this is a tricky computation giving all that the company has done with its shares. To save space I will only discuss the origins of 500 million (88%) of the shares. There is convertible preferred voting stock that is convertible into 500 million shares. This was issued to UNIVERSAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION CORPORATION (OTC BB: UPDA.ob) in payment for some assets. From the 10Q:

On April 23, 2007, the Company closed a business combination transaction pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated April 20, 2007, by and among the Company and Universal Property Development and Acquisition Corporation (“UPDA”), a publicly held Nevada corporation (the “SPA”). Pursuant to the SPA, the Company acquired one hundred percent (100%) of the capital stock of US Petroleum Depot, Inc. and Continental Trading Enterprizes, Inc. f/k/a UPDA Texas Trading (the “Subsidiaries”), two private Nevada Corporations and wholly-owned subsidiaries of UPDA. The consideration paid by the Company for the Subsidiaries consisted of $2,500,000 in cash, payable within 30 days of the Effective Date, and 50,000 shares of our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock valued at $5,000,000 (the “Preferred Stock”). The Preferred Stock is currently convertible into 500,000,000 shares of our common stock and UPDA has the right to vote the shares of Preferred Stock on an “as converted” basis in any matters for which the holders of our common stock are entitled to vote.

Valuation

Now comes the fun part. Continental Fuels, its 88% owner UPDA, and major shareholders of the two companies have repeatedly said that the stock is not worth 1% of its current market value. Following are the statements and transactions that show this:

1. The acquisition of a majority of CFUL stock by UPDA. The preferred stock (representing at that time 77% of the total stock of Continental Fuels) was in payment of a debt of $5 million incurred when CFUL bought some assets from UPDA. By this metric, Continental Fuels is rightly worth $6.5 million. This puts the value of its stock at $0.011 per share.

From a recent 8k filing regarding the merger: “The consideration received by us from CFI for the Subsidiary Shares consisted of $2,500,000 in cash, payable within 30 days of the Effective Date, and 50,000 shares of CFI’s Series A Convertible Preferred Stock valued at $5,000,000 (the “Preferred Stock”). The Preferred Stock is currently convertible into 500,000,000 shares of CFI common stock and the Registrant has the right to vote the shares of Preferred Stock on an “as converted” basis in any matters for which the holders of CFI’s common stock are entitled to vote. Based on the number of shares of CFI common stock currently outstanding, as of the Effective Date the Registrant controlled seventy-seven percent (77%) of the voting stock of CFI.”

2. A large shareholder recently sold 100 million shares of CFUL to UPDA in exchange for 10,000 shares of UPDA Series preferred stock. That preferred stock is convertible into 200 million shares of UPDA stock, which at a recent market price of $.042 per share values the preferred stock at $8.4 million. Why would someone sell stock valued at $170 million for stock in a different company, worth $8.4 million? The simple reason is that CFUL is way overvalued, and Ms. Sandhu was rightly afraid that by the time she could sell her stock (it was restricted until February 2008) the stock would have tanked. If Ms. Sandhu gained nothing from this transaction, then this stock swap values CFUL at $48 million and each share at $.084.

From UPDA’s most recent 10Q:On August 13, 2007, Ms. Karen Sandhu sold 100,000,000 shares out of 141,000,000 shares of Continental’s outstanding $.001 par value common stock held by her to UPDA for 10,000 shares of UPDA Series B Preferred Stock. UPDA made the purchase on behalf of Continental as treasury stock and was retired on the same day.

also from the 10Q: “In July of 2007, certain holders of Series B preferred shares converted 3,520 Series B preferred shares into 70,400,000 common shares.”

3. Those shares (plus 40 million others) of CFUL that were sold by Karen Sandhu were acquired by her in a private placement in exchange for $200,000 on February 6, 2007.

From CFUL’s 10Q: “On February 6, 2007, Company completed the sale of 141,000,000 restricted shares of its post-2007 Reverse Split common stock to Ms. Karen Sandhu for $200,000 cash. Company used the proceeds from this offering to pay outstanding debts and liabilities.”

4. Continental’s 88% owner, UPDA, has a market cap of $33 million. If Continental Fuels was worth its current implied market cap, UPDA would be not only greatly undervalued but it would be the best investment of all time.

5. On August 17, 2007, Continental Fuels issued 12.6 million restricted shares to pay off a $100,000 debt, valuing those shares at $0.008 per share. Assuming a modest discount (20%) for the restricted shares, the company so much as said that it is worth $0.01 per share or $5.7 million.

From the 8k: “On August 17, 2007, the board of directors of the Registrant approved the conversion of an aggregate of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) of outstanding notes of the Registrant (the “Notes”) into shares of the Registrant’s common stock. Based upon the current assets and capitalization of the Registrant, the conversion price of the shares of common stock to be issued upon conversion of the Notes was valued at $0.008 per share by the Registrant’s board of directors. The conversion of the Notes to shares of the Registrant’s common stock is at the discretion of the Note holders. However, convertibility of the Notes is subject to certain limitations based on the number of shares of the Registrant’s common stock then outstanding. Upon the eventual full conversion of the Notes to common shares, the approved conversion of the Notes to common stock will result in the issuance by the Registrant of an aggregate of 12,615,326 restricted shares of its common stock.

6. A similar transaction to #5 above took place back in April, valuing the company’s stock at $0.012 per share.

from the 8k dated 23 April 2007: “On April 25, 2007, the board of directors of the Registrant approved the conversion of an aggregate of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) of outstanding notes of the Registrant (the “Notes”) into shares of the Registrant’s common stock. Based upon the current assets and capitalization of the Registrant, the conversion price of the shares of common stock to be issued upon conversion of the Notes was valued at $0.012 per share by the Registrant’s board of directors. The conversion of the Notes to shares of the Registrant’s common stock is at the discretion of the Note holders. The eventual full conversion of the $100,000 in Notes to common stock will result in the issuance of an aggregate of 8,326,115 restricted shares of our common stock.”

When Will Sanity Return?

I have proven my case that Continental Fuels is incredibly overvalued. When should its valuation return to a realistic level? I am not sure, for it is never possible to predict stock price changes. However, it is a worthwhile exercise to examine a couple factors that will influence the price of the company’s stock.

1. UPDA has begun to convert its preferred shares to common shares of Continental Fuels. Consequently, it has decided to spinoff a number of these shares to its shareholders. A total of 787 million shares were outstanding as of the record date, and one share of CFUL will be distributed for each 50 shares of UPDA. This means that 16.7 million more shares of CFUL will hit the market, although not until August 1, 2008, because these shares are restricted from trading for one year. With only about 2 million shares trading currently (according to Yahoo Finance and verified by me from the company’s SEC filings), selling of a large chunk of those 16 million shares next August as the shares lose their restrictions will quickly depress the price.

From the press release on CFUL’s website: “According to the Board Resolution, one share of CFUL common stock will be distributed to UPDAs common stockholders for every 50 shares of UPDA common stock held. Every UPDA common stockholder will receive at least one CFUL share in this distribution and fractional shares will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. The date of the distribution will be August 1, 2007 to UPDAs common stockholders of record on July 11, 2007. Although the distributed shares will be restricted from transfer for one year pursuant to SEC Rule 144, UPDA has obtained an opinion that the shares will have no tax consequence to the recipient until they are sold or transferred.

2. Every month since April the number of shares of CFUL sold short has increased dramatically. Currently (as of August 2007), 417,000 shares are sold short (see here and search for CFUL for updated numbers). Increased selling is inevitable as more short sellers (and stockholders) become aware of the company’s extreme overvaluation.

Conclusions

The absurd valuation of Continental Fuels despite highlights several problems with capital markets in the United States. In a future post I will address these problems and ways that financial market regulation can change this.

Disclosure: I am short Continental Fuels (OTC BB: CFUL.ob). I do not recommend investing in unlisted stocks or in shorting stocks, as both are very risky. Combining the two is perhaps even more risky and should be left to the brave, the foolhardy, and the professionals. I refuse to disclose to which of these categories I belong. See my disclosure policy.

I love revealing the ignorance of my critics

If you are bored, see SeekingAlpha and the comments on my post about Octillion (scroll to the bottom).

To my critics: if you are going to criticize me, at least try having your facts right. The one universal I have found is that people who ‘invest’ in the penny stocks I disparage tend not to think very deeply before lobbing crazy accusations. And they should be ashamed of themselves, because not only do they lose their own money in bad investments, they give money to fraudsters, fools, and useless dreamers, which means there is less money for legitimate and useful businesses.

Disclosure:  I hate Octillion. I would short it if I could. But I can’t. So I am neither long nor short. My disclosure policy also hates Octillion and thinks it is worthless.

Press Release: Hedge Fund Gets Two Spots on Regent Communications Board

CINCINNATI, Sept. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Regent Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: RGCINews) today announced the appointment of John Ahn and Joseph Patrick Hannan to the Company’s Board of Directors. Messrs. Ahn and Hannan are filling two newly created seats, which increase the Company’s Board from five to seven members, including six independent members. Mr. Ahn will serve on the Board’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Mr. Hannan will serve on the Board’s Audit and Compensation Committees.

The Company also announced today that it has entered into an agreement with Riley Investment Management LLC and SMH Capital Inc. in which all pending litigation has been dismissed.

I previously mentioned Regent Communications [[rgci]] and its lawsuit against hedge fund Riley Investment Management.

Congratulations to Riley and to John Ahn. They can now get down to the business of squeezing value out of Regent.

Disclosure: I hold RGCI stock. My disclosure policy makes for good reading.

Fun with Terax Oil & Gas

Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I find joy in reading the SEC litigation updates. I subscribe via RSS. This is how I learned about Terax Oil & Gas (OTC BB: TEXG.ob). The company as well as its executives have been sued by the SEC, and the company’s assets have been frozen.

Trading in the shares of Terax Oil and Gas has been suspended by the SEC from September 12 until September 25.

Of course, this is small consolation for “investors” who bought shares of the stock at $20 a year ago. They last traded at $2.65 and they are probably worth absolutely nothing now. It just goes to show that caveat emptor definitely still applies when investing in unlisted over-the-counter stocks.

Disclosure: I have no pecuniary interest in Terax. My disclosure policy makes for good reading and is best accompanied by a glass of Muscat.

Kiplinger profiles my favorite overhyped penny stocks

In a recent article on hyped-up penny stocks, Kiplinger wrote about three stocks, two of which I have previously profiled in this blog, including SunCal Energy (OTCBB: SCEY). I warned investors about SunCal fully two months ago, and my warning was timely–since then, the stock has fallen from around $3.40 per share to about $1.20 per share.

Kiplinger writers should start reading my blog–if they had, they could have found these companies (and many more similar companies) much earlier, making their lives easier and informing their readers sooner.

Disclosure: I have no position in SCEY, although I did short it a month ago.

Octillion (OTC:OCTL): Another Worthless Penny Stock

CEO Previously Fined by SEC

First, see David Phillips’ article on the company’s CEO, Harmel S. Rayat, and his other failed companies. Then take a look at the SEC’s website to find out that Octillion’s CEO and majority shareholder was previously fined $20k for stock promotion. Andrew Left of StockLemon wrote a nice (if dated) article on Rayat’s company Hepalife (OTC:HPLF) back in 2003. David Phillips (of The 10Q Detective) wrote a more recent attack on Hepalife.

The CEO is still working at a number of his other penny stock companies. Therefore, the company states (in the May prospectus):

Our officers and directors are also officers, directors, and employees of other companies, and we may have to compete with the other companies for their time, attention and efforts; none of our officers and directors anticipate devoting more than approximately twenty-five (25%) percent of their time to our matters.”

That the officers of the company are not full time is not exactly a good sign!

Valuation

As of June 29, 2007, the company had 51.125 million shares outstanding. At a recent closing price of $4.40 per share, that gives the company a $225 million market cap. The company has a book value of just under $1 million.

Back in mid-April (see the 8k) the company sold shares for $0.50 apiece in a private offering (actually, three warrants were included with each share, so this overstates the price). Has the company really become 10 times more valuable in the last 5 months?

Misleading Statements

Octillion triumphantly announced that NREL research had validated its own methods. However, as of right now, Octillion has nothing more than an idea and some silicon dust. Sure, the method they claim to use seems to work well. But I doubt Octillion, with a minuscule R&D budget, will be the company to get this technology to work consistently in the lab, let alone in a commercialized product. Octillion has issued another press release to claim that other solar power breakthroughs validate its technology.

The company likes to mention that the solar technology is covered by 10 US patents. However, the company does not own those patents–they are owned by U of Illinois Urbana/Champaign. It is only working to commercialize the patents. Since the company first started working with UIUC in August 2006 until May 2007, it has paid a grand total of $89,000. Not exactly a world-class research budget (see page 4 of this prospectus for details). Over the last three months, the company spent $151k on investor relations and only $27k on R&D.

It turns out that Octillion does not even have an exclusive license to develop and market the technologies it is investigating:

From page 17 of the company’s recent 10Q: “During the term of our ISURF Agreement and the UIUC Sponsored Research Agreement, we will determine whether to acquire an exclusive license from, respectively, ISURF and UIUC to the technologies underlying the agreements. The final terms and conditions of any such licenses cannot now be determined. If the results of the continuing research projects do not warrant our exercise of our option to negotiate an exclusive license to market the ISURF Nerve Regeneration Technology or the UIUC Silicon Nanoparticle Energy Technology, we may need to abandon our business model, in which case our shares may have no value and you may lose your investment.”

So even if these technologies end up working, the universities could demand more money for the licensing rights than Octillion could pay, and another company with deeper pockets could end up buying the license.

Knowing When to Sell

The brothers of CEO Harmel S. Rayat sold a large chunk (1.7% of the company’s shares) of their stake in the company in May (or soon thereafter, as set forth in the May prospectus, page 46). Other selling shareholders included two corporations that were wholly-owned by employees of Octillion (6.5% of the total shares outstanding).

Is Smart Money Buying?

David Gelbaum (a noted philanthropist) recently filed a 13D, stating that he (actually, a trust benefiting him and his wife) owned 6.7% of the outstanding shares of Octillion. However, considering his large stake in another OTC stock that I consider to be greatly overvalued (Worldwide Water, WWAT.ob), I doubt his investing prowess.

Conclusion: Stay Away

I peg Octillion’s fair value at $1 million, its book value. More aggressive speculators might believe it to be worth 10x book. Cynics might value it at $0 considering its CEO’s track record. No matter what it is at least 25x overvalued. For more information, as always, check out the company’s SEC filings.

Disclosure: I am neither long nor short OCTL. See my disclosure policy.

A tale of two oil companies: Stormcat Energy (SCU) and Fox Petroleum (OTC: FXPE)

Sometimes the stock market is completely irrational. I will illustrate this with two wildcat oil companies (or junior exploration companies as similar companies often prefer to be called). Both companies are highly risky and may never make any profit. They are both highly speculative. Given the risks, however, one seems cheap while the other seems priced for perfection in this world and in the next.

The first company, StormCat Energy [[SCU]] seems cheap to me. It is trading at an all-time low, just about at its net tangible asset value (about $60 million). It is producing some oil, although still not very much. It remains unprofitable. While I am no oil and gas expert, I know that paying no more than the net value of all the company’s property and equipment (not even considering the value of the oil and gas underground) will lead to success more times than not. As long as the company’s management has some clue what they are doing the company should eventually become profitable. There is a decent chance of management having a clue–the company’s executive roster reveals a decent amount of experience.

Fox Petroleum (FXPE.ob) is a different story. The company has no employees and no assets other than a few mineral leases on property on Alaska’s North Slope and in the North Sea. The company has a market cap of $116 million and its leases are worth at best $50 million (and that is being very generous)–if the company cannot raise enough money to explore or does not find oil, its leases are worth $0. Other than its leases, the company has assets of $2 million. The company’s management does not inspire confidence, either. Only one of the executives has any oil operating experience–while one was involved on the financial side of mining companies and the third has no previous similar experience. Perhaps the only good thing I can say about Fox Petroleum is that management is not being paid absurd salaries.

Fox Petroleum’s contract with its President and CEO does not inspire confidence either: it requires that he work a minimum of three days per week (see the 8k where this is reported). For $140k per year that seems like a very minimal requirement. See the company’s most recent 10Q and 10K for details.

FXPE 6-month chart

While I am no expert on valuing oil exploration companies, I cannot think of any logic behind the divergent valuations of these two companies.

Disclosure: I have no pecuniary interest in either SCU or FXPE.ob. My disclosure policy never capitalizes its exploration costs.

Hastings (HAST) Posts Enviable Earnings

Not bad considering that music sales were down big. Rick Munarriz has a decent take on the earnings announcement over at The Motley Fool.

Hastings [[hast]], currently selling around $7 per share, is a scrappy little retailer that sells books, music, movies, video games, and rents movies and video games. The company is cheap when compared to its book value or earnings. I generally think management is competent, although the company should institute a dividend to better allocate capital.

Disclosure: I own Hastings stock. My disclosure policy always beats analyst estimates.

Run DMC (aka, Run Away from Document Security Systems)

No, I’m not writing about the old school rap group. I’m writing about Document Security Systems, Inc. [[DMC]], which is currently trading at $10.90. Any investor in DMC should do one thing: run!

DMC is a company without a decent product, without any significant assets (tangible or intangible), without any hope of ever making any sales significant enough to justify its current market cap. While the company has doubled its revenues over the last year ($1.75 million in Q1 2007, vs. $0.86 million in Q1 2006), about half of that increase has come from acquisitions ($215k from 2006 acquisition of P3) and from growth in the acquired companies (approximately $200k in sales growth in P3, see p.17 of the 10Q for details). Also, for an intellectual property company, Document Security Systems spends very little on R&D: $109k in the most recent quarter (see the August 9, 2007 press release). Net loss was $2.9 million in the most recent quarter (Q2, ended June 30). As for sales, they were up 10% in Q2 2007 versus Q2 2006. Not bad. But again, the company did make some acquisitions in that time. Oh, and share count was up 6% in the same period of time.

DMC 1 year chart

DMC’s one supposed asset is a patent on a document security system that prevents documents from being digitally scanned or copied. The one problem is that the patent was ruled invalid in the United States in 2000 and was ruled invalid in Britain and WIPO just this spring (the company has filed appeals). The company is of course appealing the recent rulings in Europe, but the case against them seems to me to be pretty strong. Also, if the company loses its appeals in Europe, it will not only have its patents invalidated but it will be liable for the court costs of the European Central Bank (which is trying to have the patents ruled invalid). The company did win an identical case in Germany, but it is unclear what would happen if the company won cases in some countries but not others. For a brief synopsis, I suggest reading Asensio.com’s report (Asensio.com is an independent short-selling research outfit). I also suggest reading Asensio’s prior reports on DMC. You can see DMC’s European patent online. I have uploaded a pdf copy of the patent to my website here.

I came across an analyst that upgraded DMC to buy recently (see report). It turns out that the company that hired the analyst is being paid $30,000 per year to ‘to assist with strategies related to the increase of share liquidity and general market presence’. That sounds a lot like ‘pump up the stock’ to me. And while the analyst himself is independent, he would be a fool to bite the hand that feeds him, and he is no fool. CCM Opportunities, the research company that hired the analyst, has only 1 company with a rating of sell or avoid, and of the companies that it rates hold, only one is a microcap (others, like WMT and ADM are megacaps). So in other words, if you pay CCM to get coverage for your microcap company, you can be pretty darn sure that you will get at least a ‘speculative buy’ rating. Not bad for $30k.

DMC has a market cap of $148 million. It has net tangible assets of about $3 million. Because of its huge SG&A costs and resulting losses, the company’s fair value is $0. I suggest avoiding investing in DMC.

I am currently trying to get a copy of the German patent court decision and I am trying to get an opinion from an expert on European patent law. I will post an update when I know more information.

Disclosure: I am short DMC. Short selling is very risky and I do not recommend it. My disclosure policy has patents pending.