July 1, 2021
        		    
        		    
        		    
        		    
									
Sponsored research. An interesting idea. Your public company can't attract research. Could be you're a hidden gem that no one's found. Could be that you're a hot, wet, steamy mess that no one wants to bother with. Lots of possibilities. One solution is that you pay someone to write about your business. For some struggling companies, that may be the only way to kick-start interest in their stock. For other companies, well, how should I put it -- maybe it's a way to generate a little bit of pump and whole lot of dump. All depends on who's paying and who's getting paid. Be that as it may, a recent SEC regulatory settlement sheds some light on sponsored research. 
Sponsored Research
Reuben
Robert Goldman, 52, is the founder/owner/sole employee of Two Triangle
Consulting Group, LLC d/b/a Goldman Small Cap Research ("GSCR"); and
between 1989 and 2003, Goldman held Series 7, 62, 62, and 65 licenses while
registered with several broker dealers. That's a helluva a lot of hats for one
guy to wear and Mr. Goldman likely doffs them with great pride and wears them
with aplomb. As to the nature of GSCR's business, well, it apparently
distributes stock market research and promotional research through
"GoldmanResearch.com,"
email lists, and the company's Twitter and Facebook accounts. So what could go
wrong with all of that right? 
SEC
Settlement
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2021/33-10953.pdf As
alleged in part in the SEC Order:
3.
GSCR's business primarily consists of producing promotional materials about
microcap issuers and distributing these materials online to potential investors
in exchange for cash payments from the issuers or third parties. Since GSCR's
inception, Goldman has drafted nearly all of GSCR's publications, and he has
personally drafted and publicly posted all of GSCR's
tweets. 
4. Between April 28, 2016 and March 2,
2021, Goldman used GSCR's Twitter account (@GoldmanSmallCap) to publish
twenty-nine sponsored promotional tweets that failed to disclose that GSCR had
been compensated by the issuers to promote their securities. Specifically,
these twenty-nine tweets promoted the securities of issuers that had paid GSCR
for promotional services, but did not disclose that they were paid promotions
or identify the amount of GSCR's
compensation. 
5. Each of the twenty-nine tweets
included positive messages about the issuer's business or commentary on the
potential value of the issuer's securities. In each of the tweets, Goldman
included a "cashtag" -- the issuer's ticker symbol preceded by a dollar sign
("$"). 
6. As a result of the conduct described
above, Respondents violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act, which
prohibits publishing, giving publicity to, or circulating "any notice,
circular, advertisement . . . 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 . . . without fully
disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and
the amount
thereof." 
In accordance with the terms of the
settlement and SEC Order, Respondents will cease and desist from committing or
causing violations of Section 17(b) of the Securities Act and will jointly and
severally disgorge $39,931 plus $3,720.82 interest, and will jointly and
severally pay a $39,931 civil money penalty. Additionally, Respondents agreed to
an undertaking whereby they will:
conduct a comprehensive review of the disclosure practices
of all entities they directly or indirectly own or control, and implement
policies and procedures regarding compliance with Section 17(b) of the
Securities Act, including with that Section's requirements concerning
disclosure of both the receipt of consideration and the amount
thereof. 
Certify, in writing, compliance with
the undertaking set forth above . .
.
Bill Singer's
Comment
According to the SEC
Order, GSCR's business primarily consists of producing promotional
materials about microcap issuers and distributing these materials online to
potential investors in exchange for cash payments from the issuers or third
parties." That's a nice business plan. If you visit the
GoldmanResearch.com website, you will come across this disclaimer, which states
in part at "Sponsored Research : Definition and
Explanation"  https://www.goldmanresearch.com/201002021219/Article/sponsored-research-definition-and-explanation.html
Unless otherwise noted,
investors should view all of our reports, updates, notes, alerts and podcast
interviews as sponsored content, or sponsored research.  What does
this mean?
It means that the content we
produce is paid for by the issuers or a third party. Although we are paid to
publish and distribute the content, we do not take on any assignment unless we
believe that a particular company or stock has merit; i.e., has meaningful
upside potential that outweighs the risk.  Given the risk profile of
many of the companies we have covered or written about, the underlying stocks'
risk/reward is akin to venture capital which has a low success rate (batting
average) but when there is a winner it can move higher in value exponentially.
Therefore, in the case of any stock we write about or engage in an interview,
we believe it has the potential to generate outsized returns despite its
inherent, above-average business, market, or financial
risk.
The reasons behind
companies' seeking our coverage vary.  In most cases, the firms on
which we publish reports cannot attract traditional research coverage by
investment banks and broker-dealers. They may wish to add to their shareholder
base and overall value because they are contemplating future up-listings or are
perhaps seeking to use an opportunity such as greater awareness and visibility
as an opportunity to raise funds for acquisitions or working capital. In nearly
all cases, we find that while management teams know their industry and can
speak to their partner or customer audiences, they have difficulty presenting
their company to prospective investors. This is one of our strengths, as we
attempt to succinctly describe the underlying companies, their industries,
where they fit in the food chain, etc. Moreover, we deem it important for the
research to be presented in the proper
format.
Without such reports or
interviews, it is likely that the stock would languish and speculative investors
would not have an opportunity to learn or potentially invest in such a
company.  However, given the companies' risk profile, we endeavor to
list what would be considered leading risks in the risk factors sections found
in our coverage initiation reports. . .
.
Sponsored
research. Strikes me as a euphemism. If we go by Goldman
Research's narrative, without sponsored research "it is likely that the
stock would languish . . ." Okay, sure, that's one way of putting it. Pay
for play might be another way.  A counterfactual would be that there
may be reasons why certain firms cannot attract traditional research coverage by
investment banks and broker-dealers; e.g. a lousy balance sheet, non-existent
profits, horrific business plan,
etc. 
It's virtually impossible to conduct an
online search for anything without finding that the products/services
"results" atop the list are paid and sponsored. And, yes, those
top-of-the-list results often disclose that they are ads or sponsored content.
Similarly, so much of what is presented online as "free" is
interrupted by an unwanted and intrusive video advertisement. So . . .
sponsored research is a concept that's found a home in this Internet Age. That
doesn't make the concept of sponsored research palatable. It just puts things
in perspective. Unfortunately, part of that perspective is reconciling Goldman
Small Cap Research's online disclaimers with this finding in the SEC
Order:
4.
Between April 28, 2016 and March 2, 2021, Goldman used GSCR's Twitter account
(@GoldmanSmallCap) to publish twenty-nine sponsored promotional tweets that
failed to disclose that GSCR had been compensated by the issuers to promote
their securities. Specifically, these twenty-nine tweets promoted the
securities of issuers that had paid GSCR for promotional services, but did not
disclose that they were paid promotions or identify the amount of GSCR's
compensation. 
I don't like this settlement. I don't
think it addresses the troubling issues raised by sponsored research. I am
worried that the takeaway from the SEC's imposition of a cease-and-desist and
relatively modest financial sanctions is that the business model of paid
research is somehow okay. Then again, I don't like the Nanny State and until such time as Congress outlaws sponsored research, well, I guess it's one of those things that is perfectly legal but just something that I don't like.