Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Dephormation - you go and try to buy any quantity of PHRX shares and you'll find there simply aren't any for sale. So the price is irrelevant.

I'm not talking about buying them. I'm talking about selling.

For arguments sake, suppose you had 50,000 to sell.

What would you do? Sell them as (valuable) unrestricted stock? Or convert them to (less valuable) Regulation S stock?

Why would anyone convert any unrestricted stock to Regulation S stock?

[HamsterWheel]

the company converted them, as I said in my first post on the subject, probably so they could issue them to employees taking up share options.

Next conspiracy theory ?

[Florence]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

that is because you can only buy the PHRX stocks in the US, the reg S shares can be sold outside the US

that is the reason for the reg S shares.

no point having an international company if only US investors can invest

but reg S has been seen by many as having insufficient controls to prevent various types of fraud

correct me if i am wrong

peter

We offer this disturbing thought. The federal securities laws, the very rules that were calculated to discourage deception and protect investors, provide a pair of mechanisms that fuel fraudulent stock schemes. Or, to put it slightly differently, securities laws that are designed to foster transparency and disclosure instead protect silence and deception.

One fundamental precept underlies our federal securities laws - investors must be given access to material information about public companies and the people who run and control them. Yet two federal regulations not only ignore that mandate but tolerate secrecy.

What are these tools that can be used to distribute stock clandestinely to the four corners of the globe, conceal identities, launder funds, and defraud investors? They are every con artist's dream and every law enforcement official's nightmare - and they share a common root, the letter "S." They are Regulation S, which allows U.S. public companies to sell stock overseas without registration, and Form S-8, which enables companies to register shares instantly.

When they were first enacted, these two regulations were relatively benign, but promoters and manipulators have discovered ways to utilize both Regulation S and Form S-8 to further illicit schemes.

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I went out at lunch, got an ice cream, and though doh! USD conversion. So I just checked it all out again.

Pleased to say, I think I am not wrong. All currencies are GBX.

PHRX.L; bid offer spread is £16.00 - £25.00, mid point is £20.50

PHRM.L; bid offer spread is £11.00 - £11.75, mid point is £11.37

So if I take 50,000 of PHRX.L (worth 50,000 x £20.50 = £1,025,000)

and convert it to

PHRM.L (worth 50,000 x £11.37 = £587,500)

I lose £1,025,000 - £587,500 = £437,500.

Almost half the value. And my unrestricted shares suddenly become restricted Regulation S shares. I can't sell them in the USA.

Now, I know nothing about share dealing it must be said, but to my untrained eye that looks like an awfully poor investment choice.

If this was a stock people wanted to buy, why devalue it, and sell it at half price.

Seems barmy to me.

The reason we watch Phorm so carefully, is because when we don't, strange things start happening to our net connections.

From what I read about Reg-S shares doesn't this mean they can now be sold in the Uk and elsewhere in the world? (without the protection afforded to the USA based shares).

Perhaps it's something you would need to do if you were going to allocate shares to uk employees or something. IANASB (that's stock broker, not son-of-a-bitch, that would be IANASOAB..and would also be a lie )

[HamsterWheel]

Form Phorm's website - no doubt a place where you all fear to tread !

"Phorm's outstanding shares trade under two ticker symbols: PHRM and PHRX. The PHRM shares are subject to certain trading restrictions. The PHRX shares are unrestricted.

As of 3 March, 2008, we had a total of 11,370,898 PHRM shares outstanding. Of the PHRM shares, 434,000 shares were issued on 22 June, 2007, these shares remain subject to the one-year distribution compliance restrictions on sales to US persons pursuant to Regulation S under the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The remainder of our PHRM shares are not subject to distribution compliance restrictions under Regulation S. However, all our PHRM shares contain US Securities Act of 1933 legends, and absent registration, holders must have an available exemption (e.g. Rule 144) in connection with any sales to US persons.

As of 3 March, 2008, we had a total of 850,326 PHRX shares outstanding. The PHRX shares do not contain any restrictive legend. In general, these shares are freely tradable unless they are held by persons who are (or during the last three months were) affiliates of Phorm."

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

For arguments sake, suppose you had 50,000 to sell.

What would you do? Sell them as (valuable) unrestricted stock? Or convert them to (less valuable) Regulation S stock?

Why would anyone convert any unrestricted stock to Regulation S stock?

Maybe you would take the loss to hand them out to nervous UK and Russian staff to keep them on the payroll? it's a reasonable corollary of what the Hamster is suggesting.

[MovedGoalPosts]

There is a lot of discussion in this thread about shares and prices:

Nothing on this board should be accepted as any recommendation as to whether or not any person should or should not buy, sell, or otherwise invest in any company or organisation. Any reader of this forum should consult a competent advisor before any decision is reached.

[Dephormation]

Can't comprehend this. The article headline is "Phorm trial to begin 'imminently' ".

But the text within says

BT denies the rumours of an imminent trial, claiming that there is no planned date for the test, but said that customers would be sent invites beforehand. Phorm similarly claims that it has no current plans, and that it would be given only 24 hours' notice to begin a test with no prior warning, as it was "BT's trial".

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/208191/phorm-trial-to-begin-imminently.html

---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------

More Home Office nonsense

[BetBlowWhistler]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

More Home Office nonsense

To paraphrase the response shown in that url..

"We are a useless bunch of ******s and we don't know why you continue to pays us huge sums of cash for what amounts to getting into bed with big business. But thanks anyway. Ta ta."

[jelv]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Isn't it time they considered changing the name of that web site?

[icsys]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

More Home Office nonsense

Re more Home Office nonsense.

Consider the facts...

In a statement, the Home Office emphasised that the note should not be taken as gospel by anyone. It said: "We can't comment on the legal position of targeted online advertising services. It is up for [sic] the courts to interpret the law.

"We did prepare an informal guidance note. It should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give. It wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology."

It was not intended for publication, but was disseminated by one of the companies.

"The note expressed a generalised view on whether RIPA was relevant to targeted online advertising. However, it was not formal guidance nor was it a definitive statement of the law. "


Based on the FACT that the HO cannot say whether it is legal or not and DID NOT examine the technology nor did they instruct any technical experts to examine it, the Home Office 'informal guidance note' should be withdrawn with immediate effect. They should never have given the view in the first place.

It's a good job that it was leaked into the public domain to show how incompetent the Home Office is on such matters.

They will not retract, no doubt because of the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong.
Because of this absurdity, both phorm and BT believe they can commit corporate eavesdropping without fear of redress.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by HamsterWheel

Form Phorm's website - no doubt a place where you all fear to tread !

"Phorm's outstanding shares trade under two ticker symbols: PHRM and PHRX. The PHRM shares are subject to certain trading restrictions. The PHRX shares are unrestricted.

As of 3 March, 2008, we had a total of 11,370,898 PHRM shares outstanding. Of the PHRM shares, 434,000 shares were issued on 22 June, 2007, these shares remain subject to the one-year distribution compliance restrictions on sales to US persons pursuant to Regulation S under the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The remainder of our PHRM shares are not subject to distribution compliance restrictions under Regulation S. However, all our PHRM shares contain US Securities Act of 1933 legends, and absent registration, holders must have an available exemption (e.g. Rule 144) in connection with any sales to US persons.

As of 3 March, 2008, we had a total of 850,326 PHRX shares outstanding. The PHRX shares do not contain any restrictive legend. In general, these shares are freely tradable unless they are held by persons who are (or during the last three months were) affiliates of Phorm."

so this would enable phorm to give share options to employees of non US citizenship (eg in UK or Russia), fair enough, in return though the value of the company is reduced as the overall value of shares (both protected and Reg S combined) is reduced

and restrictions do not allow them to be return to protected status for 12 calander months (although loopholes do appear to be around to negate this restriction, like offshore companies etc)

Peter

(as the moderator says
Nothing on this board should be accepted as any recommendation as to whether or not any person should or should not buy, sell, or otherwise invest in any company or organisation. Any reader of this forum should consult a competent advisor before any decision is reached

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

Originally Posted by icsys

Re more Home Office nonsense.

Consider the facts...

In a statement, the Home Office emphasised that the note should not be taken as gospel by anyone. It said: "We can't comment on the legal position of targeted online advertising services. It is up for [sic] the courts to interpret the law.

"We did prepare an informal guidance note. It should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give. It wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology."

Based on the FACT that the HO cannot say whether it is legal or not and DID NOT examine the technology nor did they instruct any technical experts to examine it, the Home Office 'note' should be withdrawn with immediate effect. they should never have given the view in the first place.

It's a good job that it was leaked into the public domain to show how incompetent the Home Office is on such matters.

They will not retract, no doubt because of the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong.
Because of this absurdity, both phorm and BT believe they can commit corporate eavesdropping without fear of redress.

It is the age old marketing / research classic of ask the right (preloaded) question to get the answer you want

I.E. would you want the adverts you see appear to be more relevant (most will answer yes)

as opposed to

would you mind all of your browsing interecepted, analysed and your privacy invaded to provide more relevant adverts (most will answer NO)

without knowing the exact question and information provided (very little if leaks are to be believed) we can't say how much spin both the HO and phorm have put on the Q & A

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

<snip>
It is the age old marketing / research classic of ask the right (preloaded) question to get the answer you want

I.E. would you want the adverts you see appear to be more relevant (most will answer yes)

as opposed to

would you mind all of your browsing interecepted, analysed and your privacy invaded to provide more relevant adverts (most will answer NO)

without knowing the exact question and information provided (very little if leaks are to be believed) we can't say how much spin both the HO and phorm have put on the Q & A

A perfect example, as explained by the ultimate Master of these matters, the superb Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey tries to teach Bernard about the worthlessness of polls, telling him to imagine he'll be interviewed:
"Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard: "Yes!"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or No?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you're told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
[...] So, alternatively, the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard: "How?"

Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard: "Yes."

Sir Humphrey: "There you are. You see, Bernard, the perfect balanced sample."

This is how BT will get their 10,000 trialists.

OB

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by OldBear

A perfect example, as explained by the ultimate Master of these matters, the superb Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister.


This is how BT will get their 10,000 trialists.

OB

You are most certainly correct with your comments but remember that the first two trials of Phorms (121Media) interception of BT customers HTTP data was certainly illegal according to unbiased analysis. It is most likely that also will be any future trial.

The bottom line is no matter what they do to opt people in or out, they will probably always be breaking copyright and possibly other laws by profiling most the other websites in the world without the website owners consent. Robots.txt on a website allowing Googlebot does not consent to Phorm. This issue will not go away. (I suspect neither will many of the other issues).

If Phorm/Webwise is supposed to be so good, why don't Phorm instigate their own User-agent string ID and watch how many, or how few, websites clamber to ensure Phorm is allowed to profile their data.

I suspect they don't because it is of my opinion that they know Phorm will not be wanted by most site owners who are informed as to what they do. It is my opinion that they produce lots of clouds and fog to smother this issue and hope it will go away (which it wont).

The issue about Phorm having the ability to track individual users by email addresses and other innocent data that they will profile from many types of HTTP data will not go away either. Phorm must be stopped.

[Frank Rizzo]

If only the UK politicians had as much clout as the US:

Charter Freezes Web Eavesdropping Plan

Charter Communications, the nation's fourth largest ISP, is indefinitely halting plans to test advertising technology that wiretaps customers' web usage, after customers criticized the idea and a powerful House Democrat raised questions about its legality.