Slashdot Mirror


Buy Low, Spam High

An anonymous reader writes "A recent study on spam has revealed that spammers see a return between 4.9% and 6% when selling stocks they have bought low and spammed the world with." From the article: "The researchers say that approximately 730 million spam e-mails are sent every week, 15% of which tout stocks. Other estimates of spam volumes are far higher. The study, by Professor Laura Frieder of Purdue University in the US and Professor Jonathan Zittrain from Oxford University's Internet Institute in the UK, analysed more than 75,000 unsolicited e-mails. All of the messages touting stocks and shares were sent between January 2004 and July 2005."

159 comments

  1. More spam then! by Cybert4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well at least these email won't get me in trouble at work, unlike some of the nastier ones.

    But it's scary that people are actually following any information in this spams. Unlike Nigerian scams, this at least has a hint of legitimacy, which will mean the spam floodgates will open even further.

    I notice the department is "anything-for-a-buck". That will change after the singularity. I see money as being a non-issue then.

    1. Re:More spam then! by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At first I thought "who are these stupid people buying stock from spammed tips?", but then I figured as long as you are one of the first to buy - you will gain almost as much on the stock as the spammer, without having spammed anyone.

      I guess the trick is to get onto a spam list that has the largest effect on the market (the widest distribution?), and get in early (perhaps many many e-mail addresses?) and try to be at the start of the spam list (perhaps addresses aaaaaaa@mail.com, zzzzzzz@mail.com etc).

      As long as you get in early on stock being manipulated, and your not the one doing the spamming, your less guilty than the spammer and there is a slightly better chance you'll get away with it....

    2. Re:More spam then! by pete6677 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You'd probably be better off shorting these stocks a few days after the spam is sent, since the price will certainly fall. That being said, shorting is very risky and should only be done by experienced investors. But if a stock price is being hyped by spam, you know it will be falling soon.

    3. Re:More spam then! by dimension6 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I looked through some examples, and it seems the stock price usually drops of significantly VERY quickly (within the day). Shorting might work there, if your broker allows it! Of course, if the price shoots up, you'll be screwed...

    4. Re:More spam then! by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Well you'd think that would be how it worked but the evidence suggests otherwise.

    5. Re:More spam then! by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      every stock spam I've seen is for pink sheet/penny stocks. You can't short them.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:More spam then! by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 1
      As long as you get in early on stock being manipulated, and your not the one doing the spamming, your less guilty than the spammer and there is a slightly better chance you'll get away with it...

      From a moral and ethical standpoint, however, you're knowingly aiding an act of securities fraud, and the spammer behind it.

      --
      proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
    7. Re:More spam then! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooops, fucktard, sorry, your little non-scientific list doesn't show the most interesting datapoint, which would be the high price after the spam went out.

    8. Re:More spam then! by wkitchen · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's the same thing all the other suckers are thinking when they buy spam promoted stocks.

    9. Re:More spam then! by russ1337 · · Score: 1
      Maybe that's the same thing all the other suckers are thinking when they buy spam promoted stocks.
      Exactly, But I'm saying that you need to get spammed first and act faster than everybody else. People later in this topic say they have bought stock from spam tips and it did ok 'cos the sheep' were following.... i'm saying you just need to be the first sheep.
  2. Wow by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So they get about the same return as relatively safe investments and all it takes is a whole bunch of extra work and risk.

    1. Re:Wow by nosredna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not exactly. They're getting a 4-6% gain the next day, not annually. Fire them off once a week, and you're talking several thousand percent gain annually.

    2. Re:Wow by HiddenL · · Score: 1

      Not really. They get that 6%-8% return in a week as opposed to 6%-8% in a month (or a year) which is what most "safe" investments claim.

    3. Re:Wow by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's still an attempt at market manipulation, and the SEC should come down on anybody who does this like the fist of an angry god. CEOs have gone to prison over this, you would think they could at least bitchslap these spam-and-dump traders with a hefty fine.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    4. Re:Wow by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      So they get about the same return as relatively safe investments and all it takes is a whole bunch of extra work and risk.

      I think the article means 4.9% to 6% per scam, meaning they make that in about two days, not over the course of one year. 4.9%, compounded once every two days for one year comes out to over 500,000%

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    5. Re:Wow by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      So they get about the same return as relatively safe investments and all it takes is a whole bunch of extra work and risk.
      RTFA. That's not an annual rate of return, thats a one to two day rate of return. 4.9% was the average 1-day rate, I don't care to do the math right now, but over the course of a year (holidays and weekends excluded), that compounds to a gajillion percent.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:Wow by MrPinstripeCom · · Score: 1

      What people are failing to realize is that with the stock market, and these people who are day trading, they are investing large amounts of money for small periods of time. This, on a large enough scale, produce significant earnings, especially if the interest in a junk stock suddenly jumps becaue five people out of the million who get the email actually foolishly went ahead and jumped on it. Penny stocks can make a lot of money fast if suddenly they have a quick spike in interest. This is where the money is being made in these situations.

    7. Re:Wow by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      as opposed to 6%-8% in a month (or a year) which is what most "safe" investments claim.
      Actually, no "safe" investment would claim even 6-8% annually. They can talk about past performance all they want, but they'll never be stupid enough to even project a figure... and all the quotes of past history will include the disclaimer that past performance is not a guarantor of future performance.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:Wow by B11 · · Score: 4, Informative

      actually they do sometimes catch them.

      --
      insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
    9. Re:Wow by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a certain group of people who are constitutionally unable to do something as mainstream as say, investing in solid funds to make their money. They need to feel like they are "getting the better" of others.

      Spammers are usually certified losers, and few really ever actually make anything of themselves, and if they do make any money, they manage to lose it somehow by themselves, or AOL starts digging in their backyards for it.

      These people you could almost feel sorry for if they weren't clogging your mail box, stealing bandwidth, trying to sell bad deals to the unwary, and underwriting organized crime by paying for use of their botnets.

      On second thought... maybe I don't feel sorry for them at all.

    10. Re:Wow by jhfry · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I think they mean that make between 4% and 6% per stock. Therefore if they do this 100 times per year they make a pretty hefty chunk after compounding.

      For example a $1000 start would pay out $131,501.26 like this over 100 iterations if they keep reinvesting the funds on their next spam crusade (using 5% return per iteration).

      So this is not 4%-6% per year... it's 4%-6% per stock... considering they are only invested for a day or two it's entirely possible that they actually bring home closer to 10000% per year. Not bad for little to no work!

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    11. Re:Wow by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      A return of 4.9% *over a few days* is damn lucrative, you could do a couple of buy-spam-sell cycle per month.

    12. Re:Wow by theelectron · · Score: 1

      You get my psuedo-mod points +100% Insightful

    13. Re:Wow by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not exactly. They're getting a 4-6% gain the next day, not annually. Fire them off once a week, and you're talking several thousand percent gain annually.

      Quote TFA: The team found that a spammer who bought shares the day before starting an e-mail campaign and then sold them the day after could make a return on his or her investment of 4.9%.

      Now the stock market is open ~250 days/year. 1,04^250 = 18127,37 = 1812737%. Not just thousands, millions. Now that's a decent ROI for any "company".

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was this idiotic comment modded "insightful"? According to the article, the spammers make 4.9% in two days. Even assuming that means two business days (not calendar days), it's about 250*4.9 = 1,225% per year.

    15. Re:Wow by recordMyRides · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you could figure out which stock they're pumping by reading those spams, buy and hold it for one workday and get the same 4-6% daily return as they spammer does?

    16. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and everyone else thinks that. Problem is you can't buy it fast enough or sell it fast enough to do it. Most people who buy into these e-mails probably think the same thing. It's a worldwide game of musical chairs and the spammer left the room before you even got to play the game!

    17. Re:Wow by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      How about shorting the stock, so you get money when it's dumped?

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    18. Re:Wow by ShibaInu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Shorting isn't something you can do with every stock. In fact there are even stocks in major indexes that can't be shorted. When you short a stock, you are essentially borrowing the stock, selling it and promising to return it in the future. But, you have to borrow the stock from someone. Most penny stocks would be considered "hard to borrow" and not available for shorting.

      Further, there are rules about when you can short a stock - only on an uptick.

      Bottom line, shorting isn't usually possible in these situations. This is probably why the spammers chose the penny stocks - cheap to take a position, don't have to worry about people shorting the stock AND there are usually not that many shares outstanding, so it doesn't take much to move the market.

    19. Re:Wow by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1
      It's still an attempt at market manipulation, and the SEC should come down on anybody who does this like the fist of an angry god.

      As soon as most investors find out about this scam, it will become legal almost overnight. Remember futures? Used to be regarded as decidedly dodgy. Nowadays they're a mainstream market force. Say hello to the new future(s); Spam!
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    20. Re:Wow by flagg9483 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem like a high level of return, but what you have to realize is the real benefit comes from the fact that they are taking advantage of an inefficiency in the market. If they can make even a 0.5% return per transaction through an artificially created imbalance in the market then they will make a killing. This kind of arbitrage is the sort of thing economists and traders dream about.

    21. Re:Wow by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      A safe investment is an investment which *guarantees* a certain return. Those are mostly in the 1-2% range. If someone actually guaranteed me 6-8% annually, I'd be off to the bank *immediately*, borrow some million EUR (rates are around 3-4% here at the moment) for one year and invest it all. Rinse, repeat. Ka-CHING...

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
    22. Re:Wow by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      Great idea. You find the spammer, and positively identify them I'll take care of letting the SEC know.

      The ability of spammers to hide behind zombie networks, etc is what makes spam of any sort hard to regulate.

      Here's an interesting question though. Is it legal (the law always suprises me) for stock exchanges and ISPs (that host email) to work together to "profile" accounts that continually "time it right"? Meaning if user 123 buys 1000 shares of XYZ for $1.00, the next day 1 million spam go out about XYZ and the stock goes up. Then the next day 123 sells his shares of XYZ. Granted there are day traders, but if a trend was noticed...could that information be passed to say the SEC?

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    23. Re:Wow by Bill+Walker · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, the SEC's insider trading investigators focus on conspicuous investments near events. For example, if someone shorts a thousand lots just before a firm announces an earnings shortfall, or if some buy calls before a company becomes the official target of a buyout. The standard for insider trading is trading with the possession of material, nonpublic information. There's nothing wrong with being consistently right (or lucky), but if that information were passed to the SEC (and the EULA had better say that it can be), the investor could be charged with racketeering provided he and his compatriots commanded a sufficient percentage of the float to make it appear that there was serious buying action in the stock. This is not insider trading, however. It's more of a Boiler Room-type scenario.

      --
      Please, for the love of God, no more car analogies.
    24. Re:Wow by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      per month? If my inbox is any indicator, some people are pumping 5 stocks/week.

      Everyday I receive up to a dozen near identical spam messages touting the same stock, using the same MO (nonsense literature combined with a graphic touting the stock. The name, size, and background color of the image varies, but the text is always the same).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    25. Re:Wow by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      For example a $1000 start would pay out $131,501.26 like this over 100 iterations if they keep reinvesting the funds on their next spam crusade (using 5% return per iteration).
      But do those stocks trade at a high enough volume to enable you to fully reinvest that way? Would it be possible to buy over $100,000 worth of, say, a .05 stock in one day? Not saying the scam wouldn't work; just wondering how far it would "scale."
    26. Re:Wow by kill-1 · · Score: 1

      No, the spammers choose penny stocks because of their very low liquidity. With these stocks one trade can be enough to move the stock price significantly.

    27. Re:Wow by kill-1 · · Score: 1

      Please tell me where I can borrow some million EUR with an interest rate of 3-4%. You realize that LIBOR is currently at over 5%?

    28. Re:Wow by vivian · · Score: 1

      I dont think you know the difference between arbitrage and stock touting. The difference is why the former is legal and the latter illegal.

      Arbitrage is where you are buying and selling an instrument (say, shares, currency, a derivative or more "exotic" combination of shares and derivative)in two different markets or two equivalent instruments within the same market, at two different prices. Arbitrage is good for the global markets - it's net effect is to bring the value of the instrument in the two markets (or the equivalent instrument in the same market) into line. It's what keeps the price of say, yen at the same price in Tokyo and New York. Arbitrage investors invest millions to make thousands, at relatively low risk. (unless their name is Nick Leeon - but that's the exception rather than the rule)

      Stock touting is damaging to the market because it artificially distorts the value of an instrument with no underlying basis, and reduces investor confidence in the market.

    29. Re:Wow by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      you could always have multiple seperate scams running at once after you built up some capital

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    30. Re:Wow by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      They even advertise it over here in Germany (in the 3.something range, don't ask me for the exact conditions, I suppose it's rather short-term). I've just bought a house, and my loan is at 4.27% (calculated by dividing the complete sum I pay over the years by the money I received). If someone were to offer in writing an investment with guaranteed 6%, I'd immediately run to the bank and get as much as I can even if I'd have to pay the 5% the LIBOR suggests. You know, after all even only 1% of a million EUR is something. ;)

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
  3. -1 Duh by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I actually get more like 50% stock stuff. It simply amazes me that no one's caught these fuckers. I mean, the money has to go somewhere, right?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:-1 Duh by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how do you prove that somebody who made a 5% profit turning around a penny stock is the same guy who sent out the "we have a runner!" spam?

    2. Re:-1 Duh by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Identifying pump-and-dump stocks is easy: you just look at the spam. It shouldn't be too hard from there to narrow down the list of suspects: people who bought just before a surge and sold during it. But if the stock is heavily trafficked, the spammers may hope to hide among the crowd.

      And connecting those people to the spam, however, may be tricky. Raid their houses, look on their computers, and hope you find something incriminating.

      There are ways to launder that money. If they're using accounts opened with fake records, and eventually withdrawing it in cash or cashier's checks, it could be hard to track them physically down.

      It may be too much work to track them all down, but I'd hope that tracking down even one of them and hitting them with a harsh sentence will scare off some of them, at least for a while.

    3. Re:-1 Duh by Amouth · · Score: 1

      I am wondering about the 75,000 spam mails.. i personaly filter for 3 domains and it totals on average 1 a sec which is 80-90,000 a day.. i am sorry but if your going to say what is with use a true sample for the base.. as for the % that is stock stuff i have no clue.. and dev null doesn't see to answer me when i ask

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:-1 Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      aid their houses, look on their computers, and hope you find something incriminating.
      I like your style, we should do this for all crime.
    5. Re:-1 Duh by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I assume the AC is baiting me for proposing draconian tactics. But you shouldn't be able to get a warrant to do that without probable cause. A suspicious pattern of stock purchases isn't sufficient evidence for a courtroom conviction, but it is sufficient for a warrant. I'd hope that the judge would hold a pretty high standard for granting such a warrant, but I'd consider a pattern of a dozen or so stocks all bought and sold right about the same time as a spam (in particular, bought just before the spam) to be sufficient.

    6. Re:-1 Duh by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      I am wondering about the 75,000 spam mails.. i personaly filter for 3 domains and it totals on average 1 a sec which is 80-90,000 a day.. i am sorry but if your going to say what is with use a true sample for the base..

      If your issue is the timeframe, then the article says that the spam was sent over a 1.5 year period. Seems ok.

      If your problem is with the size of the sample, then that isn't the issue. A sample size of that size is far more than enough, if the sample is random. Now, according to the article, the messages were received personally by the researcher (not so good), or posted to a board used to warn people about spam (far better). If the latter was the larger group, I would agree that the sampling is good enough.

    7. Re:-1 Duh by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal to buy stocks that you see other people pumping, as long as you're not pumping the stocks yourself. Your little scheme would catch innocent people who ware watching their spam mailbox to see what stocks are being pumped.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    8. Re:-1 Duh by jfengel · · Score: 1

      For a convinction, it wouldn't be sufficient to establish a pattern of buying pumped stocks. But it might be enough to get the warrant necessary to find the rest of the proof you'd need. Either you'd need to raid their computers, or possibly a wiretap watching them sending the spam.

      It would also help narrow the field if you saw somebody buy the stock just before the first spam went out.

      You'll end up investigating (and possibly raiding) at least a few innocent people who just bought the stocks being pumped and turning a profit on it. It would sure suck to be them, but if the behavior is sufficiently suspicious it seems that an investigation is merited. Police work is always messy. It's really up to the judges to make sure that the police/FBI present a very compelling case before issuing that warrant.

    9. Re:-1 Duh by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i agree .. if it was a random sample..

      i am not arguing it for the fact that spamers make money..

      i just don't think that based on that sample size that he can say x% is stock market spam

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    10. Re:-1 Duh by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Maybe he does it several times, and you'll see the same pattern every time. The same guy buys stock, spam is sent, stock goes up, he sells.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    11. Re:-1 Duh by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I said "proof" not "suspicious coincidence".

  4. Wait, you mean it works? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 0

    So... you mean that if I pick a stock from one of these scam emails, and see if there's been a recent rise in price, I can net a few percent off it if I pick it up and hold it for a period of time?

    Eh, if I felt like gambling I'd go to the casino.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Wait, you mean it works? by TigerTime · · Score: 4, Interesting

      After watching these a few times, I actually tried buying one of the stocks. The best chance is if you look at the stock and it hasn't risen any yet (meaning you get the email before everyone else).

      I bought about $100 of a $.20 stock and wound up selling it for $.55. I've stayed away from them though usually as I seem to only look at them after the price is moving.

    2. Re:Wait, you mean it works? by Daverd · · Score: 1

      And if the price has risen recently, sell it short. It's gonna go back down to its true value eventually (probably after the spammers sell their shares).

    3. Re:Wait, you mean it works? by jemenake · · Score: 1
      And if the price has risen recently, sell it short. It's gonna go back down to its true value eventually (probably after the spammers sell their shares).
      I actually looked into this earlier this year... figuring that the only *safe* bet in this world is to bet on most Americans being stupid.

      As I got each stock-pump spam, I'd record the ticker symbol and the date I first saw a spam for it. Then, I'd look at the stock's price after 1 week, 2 week, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks out. I was surprised at how consistent the results were. They'd be down to about 80% after a week or two, and then down to about 40%-60% of their value by weeks 12-16.

      So, the prescribed course of action for a pattern like this is to "short" the stock... or buy "put" options on it. But, there are two problems:
      • First, the volume on these stocks is fairly low... so low that, in order to make more than a couple hundred bucks, the volume *you* add is going to be on par with the (otherwise) "normal" volume. At that point, you're going to start affecting the price with your own actions.
      • Second, these stocks are all so small that I wasn't able to find any options trading for them whatsoever.
      Looks like I've got to keep my day job.
  5. The Clearasil Express by krell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Zittrain"

    ?????

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  6. Stupid scammers... by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

    The stocks they pick are always crap. Unlike XFGW, that sucker is ready to POP! I'm talking 30,000% return in just a few months! Yah, baby!

    1. Re:Stupid scammers... by B11 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd invest in XFGW, but I have my money tied up in helping a former government minister in Nigeria get his millions out of a bank.

      --
      insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
    2. Re:Stupid scammers... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      XFGW refinances mortgages and makes penis enlargement pills and V1agra doesn't it?

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    3. Re:Stupid scammers... by kusanagi374 · · Score: 1

      Hey, XFGW doesn't exist!

      Oh, wait a second... should I congratulate you for not taking advantage of the slashdot crowd or become worried with the fact that I actually bothered to look for XFGW?

    4. Re:Stupid scammers... by eln · · Score: 1

      I actually looked it up before I used it just to make sure it didn't actually exist. While the thought of some moron actually losing his shirt on a stock tip intended purely as a joke is pretty humorous, I don't think my (real life) karma could take the hit.

  7. Wow! Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How much all those brokerages, analysts, and cramers make selling stocks they have bought low and spammed the world with.

  8. Stock spam works! by groovy.ambuj · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Anyone (well alsmost anyone) who trades stocks is aware of these fraud tout mails and understands the liability. However problem is, you send a html link to 100 people and at least one of them will click on it because
        - he was bored and had to something/anything
        - his mouse happned to be near the link and he just cliked
        - out of sheer curiosity

    And, if 100 people visit a site, at least one of them will fall prey to it at least once in 100 years :-) becasue his subconcious mind records the name of the stock.

    Now, if you send 100M mails, the final number may be more than 1!

    Bottomline: we need strict rules and better teck to handle spammers.

    --
    This sig doesnt exist.
    1. Re:Stock spam works! by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 0, Troll

      Stricter rules might be difficult, there are a number of lobby groups setup to prevent such action, including a group in Washington, the National Assicoation Mail Business Lobby of America or NAMBLA. The have a number of legistalive issues they are invovled with. In addition, they offer a number of resources including access to government funding for minority owned spammers, ain't America great?

    2. Re:Stock spam works! by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      As pathetic as this is, I can believe it actually does work. Not that long ago, I did some on-site computer work for a guy, who in turn referred me to a couple of his friends. They were all getting into online stock trading, using some "training CD" of questionable merit.

      All of them bought new computer systems, apparently with this stock trading as their primary purpose behind them. (One guy even asked me at length about his options for buying multiple flat panel monitors, thinking it would help him with his trading.)

      None of them even knew the basics of how to get their computers properly hooked up to a broadband Internet connection. (That's one of the things they paid me for.)

      I figured they probably overestimated the value in what they were doing, but hey - not really my problem. I'm just the computer guy for hire.

      Later on, I happened to talk with a couple of them. The guy who I think got the rest of them interested, initially, told me how he was "no longer friends" with the other guys, since they had some kind of "falling out". The other guy I spoke with complained bitterly about the online stock market thing being a big "money pit" and how he lost way too much with it. He had his DSL disconnected and said he never wanted another Internet connection!

    3. Re:Stock spam works! by volsung · · Score: 1

      A great way to make money during the various gold rushes in the West was to sell people the prospecting tools. Less profit per transaction, but you made money whether they succeeded or not...

    4. Re:Stock spam works! by niceone · · Score: 1
      you send a html link to 100 people and at least one of them will click on it because
      - he was bored and had to something/anything
      - his mouse happned to be near the link and he just cliked
      - out of sheer curiosity

      That is google's whole business plan right there.
  9. That's 6% in 2 days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Folks, that's 6% in 2 days, not 1 year. That's about 33,000% anually.

    1. Re:That's 6% in 2 days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you can also get
      **free lunch**
      I mean the completely out-of-the-market thing
      **FREE LUNCH**

      You only need a larger knife than the Pizza Hut's guy.

      However, it has its potential risks (I gather).

    2. Re:That's 6% in 2 days by glgraca · · Score: 1

      These extrapolations are silly. Has there ever been a stock (or any other investment) that gained ~2.9% (inflation discounted, of course) every day for a full year?

    3. Re:That's 6% in 2 days by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      No jackass, you pump and dump Stock A, then Stock B, then Stock C, etc. Netting a 4-6% return each time.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    4. Re:That's 6% in 2 days by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      They dont have too go up 6% every two days - just 6% once in a while and the rest of the time just going down a little each day.

      They can have X stocks - and take the last in the list and do a pump n dump in that stock. Then X days later do the same - because then the stock most certainly has regainded the old level - or even less than that as the suckers has sold the stocks they where lured into buying.

      Rinse and repeat.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
  10. Finally some use for my spam! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0, Redundant
    OK this is the new strategy:

    1. Set up some honeypot email ids by posting it in the usenet.

    2. Harvest spam

    3. Look for the stock being touted

    4. Buy those stocks

    5. Wait for the price to go up by 5%.

    6. Profit!

    Oh, wait. I shouldn't post it in /. I should offer the "guaranteed way to make 5%" via spam to millions of people.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Finally some use for my spam! by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      No.. you do the opposite. You sell short the stock pumped. It's sure to FALL since they already bought it low. This would also help stop the spammers because they wouldn't make as much.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    2. Re:Finally some use for my spam! by angusmci · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that if you read the story you'll see that while the spammer makes money, buyers of the stocks usually lose. It seems that stocks typically lose 4-7% of their value on the days after the spam run. The spammers make their money by buying the day before and selling the day after; buying the spam on the same day that you see the first spams is unlikely to give you the same return.

      Some people have considered shorting the stocks they see advertised on the assumption that the stocks will go down in value ("shorting" a stock is essentially making a bet that the stock will lose value). I don't think the study addresses that, but it also looks like a risky strategy: there are too many uncertainties involved, not least of which that the spammer will continue pumping out the spam (and pumping up the price) and you'll end up having to buy the stock at a higher price.

      Trading in spammed stocks is just a complicated way to give spammers your money. You might do better just to write them a check and save yourself the broker's fee.

  11. Publicly traded companies and their spam by amichalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if it is against NASDQ/NYSE/etc exchange rules for a company to knowingly engage or have a 3rd party engage in unsolicited spam to promote the stock.

    If it is NOT, then I think it should be. I could see how a spammer who is long or short on a stock could do this without the company knowing, but if it could be proven, perhaps it would be analogous to issuing a public statement by the company.

    Thoughts?

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    1. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. I remember an 18 year old kid being put on trial after he scammed over a million dollars by hyping his stocks in internet chatrooms and on yahoo. Sadly his parents supported him and told him how proud they were.

      If your broke this certainly does have an appeal.

      If its not illegal it better well should be. Imagine if all the financial institutions in the world began doing this? if its legal then why not? They would make so much money.

    2. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by Marauder2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I wonder if it is against NASDQ/NYSE/etc exchange rules for a company to knowingly engage or have a 3rd party engage in unsolicited spam to promote the stock."

      It is against SEC regulation (read Federal LAW). It's called "Pump and Dump" or "Microcap fruad"

      http://www.sec.gov/answers/pumpdump.htm
      http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud.htm

    3. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by nlmille1 · · Score: 0
      Pretty much anything that any investor does in securities markets that ISN'T motivated by a perception of value (either over or under) is considered market manipulation by the (sometimes overly broad) definitions the SEC has laid out. Sending out these type of SPAMs, whether the spammer is associated with the target company or not, is likely to be considered securities fraud by the SEC.

      Now enforcement is a whole different animal.

    4. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by bluprint · · Score: 1

      By making this activity illegal, you validate people who go on message boards and tout a particular stock. Due to the fact that it is illegal to "pump and dump", people then are more likely to believe stuff they read on a message board. On the other hand, if it were legal, and everyone knew that, then people would be less likely to believe some crap about a stock on a message board. So, while there might be more people doing it, by making it illegal you have empowered those who are willing to break the law.

      --
      A modern day witchhunt.
    5. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      So by your logic methamphetamine should be 100% legal since people will see how bad it is and not use it. But people can do that now and they still use it, right? So how will making illegal stock activity legal convince people not to join in? If people don't know enough not to believe crapola on a message board now how is making it legal going to change things? Also, how is making something illegal "validating" those who choose to break the law? If I see someone trying to sell me stolen goods it doesn't validate theft in my eyes.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    6. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      This is a scam called "Pump and Dump" and it is not new by any means. Although email has given it a new twist and made it easier, it's been going on as long as people have been trading things. In the US, it is highly illegal, and prosecuted mercilessly by the SEC if they can catch the person doing it. It's one of the main reasons the SEC was created in the first place. Basically, if you purchase a stock for any other reason than "Gee, this looks like a solid company with a good product" then it is illegal.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    7. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by Zphbeeblbrox · · Score: 1

      While it is indeed against SEC regulations. Those regulations do not fall under the category of Federal Law. They are just a bunch of beauratic rules for doing business in the American stock market. Federal Law is voted on by elected representatives of government.

      --
      If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
    8. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by SLi · · Score: 1

      Though I don't know what the usual sentences for these cases are, I found a story of a lawyer (in the US) that did pump and dump sentenced to 8 years in prison. However that apparently also included tax fraud related to the pump and dump scheme.

    9. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Basically, if you purchase a stock for any other reason than "Gee, this looks like a solid company with a good product" then it is illegal.

      Unless your reason is "Gee, with this stock I'll gain controlling interest, then I can take it off the market, fire its workforce, borrow lots of money, liquidate its assets, pay myself a large 'finders fee', and sell the carcass."

      That's perfectly legal.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    10. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by bluprint · · Score: 1

      Look at it like this, if slander were not illegal, it would be harder to effectively slander a person. Because it is illegal, people generally have a tendency to believe what they hear more, since it is less likely that a person is simply slandering another person.

      If it was widely known that slander was legal, then anytime a person said something negative about another person, listeners would have a tendency to scrutinize the thing being said, since it is possibly slander. As it currently is, a statement is less likely to be slander because of it being illegal thereby giving increased credibility to statements in general (be they true or not).

      The issue of pumping stocks is similar. The people hearing or reading the false statements are less likely to believe the thing to be false, since it is currently illegal to make false statements for the sole purpose of trying to inflate the stock price. Because that act is illegal, any statement made on a message board gains increased credibility, thereby giving more credibility to the ones making false statements than they would otherwise have.

      --
      A modern day witchhunt.
    11. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by Peyna · · Score: 1

      However that apparently also included tax fraud related to the pump and dump scheme.

      People who obtain their money illegally, seldom report it on their taxes.

      How do you think we catch a lot of drug dealers? They make millions, buy fancy houses and cars, and pay nothing in taxes.

      --
      What?
    12. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      These are pink sheet stocks. They don't have any governing rules.
      Pink Sheets LLC is neither an NASD broker-dealer, nor registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; it is not a stock exchange, the companies listed do not need to fulfill any requirements. With the exception of a few foreign issuers, the companies quoted in the Pink Sheets tend to be closely held, extremely small and/or thinly traded. Most do not meet the minimum listing requirements for trading on a national securities exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ Stock Market. Many of these companies do not file periodic reports or audited financial statements with the SEC, making it very difficult for investors to find reliable, unbiased information about those companies.
      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    13. Re:Publicly traded companies and their spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I remember the stories on this kid. He did a grand job for himself. The funny thing is that his "scam" was actually what would be called "mechanical trading" these days if he'd put a tagline on that said "I own some of this stock". His "hype" message was pretty template -- "The EPS for this awesome stock is xx.xx! Look at other stocks with a market cap around zzz.zz! Here's one with an EPS of xx.xx/1.1, and it is valued more than my awesome stock! My awesome stock should go up!"

      IIRC: The facts in this kid's case kept him out of jail, and he got to keep a big chunk of the money too. He didn't lie about the stocks, all of his mails were opinions about the stocks and verifiable facts.

  12. Yeah, I've done it too by alexhmit01 · · Score: 3, Informative

    One morning I got my email right after the market openned, saw no movement... on a whim, bought a few hundred bucks worth, figuring, people stupider than me had to fall for it... Made about 20%-30% on the deal after commissions...

    Haven't tried in a few years, been to busy, but it was actually pretty funny... Thought about doing that with some small money... I mean, the annual percentage gain is really impressive if you actually acted on all these and got some fast run ups...

    The problem is, it's all short term, which means major taxes... Alternatively, you could do it in an IRA or other shielded account, but that means keeping in cash except when you make the play... no margin means you need to keep cash sitting around when you aren't playing, which cuts into returns... If you have margin, you can always move the cash in 2-3 days later conveniently.

    Alex

    1. Re:Yeah, I've done it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One morning I got my email right after the market openned, saw no movement... on a whim, bought a few hundred bucks worth, figuring, people stupider than me had to fall for it... Made about 20%-30% on the deal after commissions...

      That's the same thinking that the next guy to buy has and it's the same thinking as the guys who think they've figured out 3 card monte cons on the street.

      The spams I get come on Saturday and say "Watch like a hawk" "Going to explode at the open!" so I gotta figure anybody trying your method has an order pending at the open. We can't all get ahead of the other the idiots.

      Keep in mind that the scammers bought at LAST week's price.

      Also like how the companies themselves are obvious frauds where the business is impossible to understand and the breaking news is a press release that they signed a promotional agreement with another hazily defined company - probably the one sending the spam.

      I forwarded these to the SEC (enforcement@sec.gov) for a while until I noticed that they are careful not to make illegal claims. If they phrase the spam like they're stock researchers - "1 week target $5" - there's nothing illegal - nothing a legit broker couldn't do.
    2. Re:Yeah, I've done it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I forwarded these to the SEC (enforcement@sec.gov) for a while until I noticed that they are careful not to make illegal claims. If they phrase the spam like they're stock researchers - "1 week target $5" - there's nothing illegal - nothing a legit broker couldn't do.

      These schemes are called "pump & dump". And unlike legit brokers, pump & dump schemes are illegal no matter how they're phrased.

      You should resume reporting these to the SEC.

    3. Re:Yeah, I've done it too by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      So you expect us to believe that you made a ridicuolous profit on this one deal and you just walked away without trying it again? Because you've "been to busy"? Or could it be that you're one of these stock spammers, only you've found a more efficient method of spreading your ads? Slashdot: Ads for Nerds. Spam that Matters.

      Or maybe I'm a little grumpy. Either way, your story doesn't add up.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
  13. erm, no by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    As stated above, it's 6% in a day, not your annual return. Rather major difference there.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  14. I predict this story will go through the roof! by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's set to explode!

    Will it be a big mover?

    Don't let the inside investors beat you to it!

    Ugh. It simply astonished me that language like that, which is repeated over and over again, verbatim, moves enough people to bid up stocks to the point that someone can actually see gains that matter enought (without getting them arrested instantly).

    Amazing. But, 4%? Unless you're doing a LOT of it, couldn't you just mow lawns or something and make the same money while also being less fat?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:I predict this story will go through the roof! by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      That's 4% in a couple of days. That is a huge return. If you did one scam a week, you'd get 200% return a year. If you put $100k in, you'd make $200k in one year!

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    2. Re:I predict this story will go through the roof! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Now think about it, these are the same people who figure the road to wealth is scratch tickets and sitting in front of a slot machine all day. Are you surprised that they would gamble on an email out of nowhere on something they no nothing about?

      I wouldn't act on it unless it came from my old inside contact at Enron. Shhhhhh!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  15. Re:What a Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read that as making 6% in two days, not per year.

  16. Re:What a Waste by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1
    With the kind of captial investment -- not to mention criminal activity -- required to generate that level of spam, you're better off taking the same investment and throwing it in a CD or Money Market account. 6% is fairly pathetic. Schwab

    Ehum? Did you really think they meant by yearly basis? No, they meant per "spam high" incident. Now, do a handful of fast ones (in a few months perhaps since it takes the regulators a while to catch on) then it might be very profitable considering the risk and punishment. Much less risky than say financing a drug deal, it's just a white collar crime. Wouldn't be surprised if some people with grey money are backers behind scams like these.
  17. Sell Short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when the victims lose money, is it because the stock goes down? But you can make money off of decreasing stocks by selling short, and then covering it when the stock gets lower. Has anyone thought of this?

    1. Re:Sell Short by gmb61 · · Score: 1

      The stocks these spammers are touting are all "Over The Counter Bulletin Board" (OTCBB) stocks. Most, if not all, brokerages do not allow shorting of OTCBB stocks.

  18. bandwagon? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    Then the next time you get one of these, you should buy the stock ASAP and also profit, along with the original spammer. This can really get out of hand.

    1. Re:bandwagon? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      ... and you can get a free IPod too! Just tell 5 other friends and have them tell 5 more. The more it trickles down the more money you can get.

      Please dont give anyone any ideas here? After the free Ipod craze 2 years ago I dont want another one with stock options.

    2. Re:bandwagon? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      you should buy the stock ASAP

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ASAP

    3. Re:bandwagon? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
      Bummer that they changed it to ASAP.PK. Kind of ruins it.

      Still, I think I'll take my time buying ASAP. Damn. I can't say that anymore...

  19. Gotta love spammers by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    I know this is off-topic, but you gotta check-out the picture in the article. The young hacker spammer guy in that "Scooore!" pose is hilarious! And the older non-geek guy behind him with the bewildered look emphasizes the point.

    Perhaps this will inspire many would-be advisors to send spam about how to make money fast by sending spam emails about stocks. If it works, then it will inspire more spammers to send spam about how to make money sending spam about how to make money fast by sending spam emails about stocks. Depending on the success, it might spawn a whole slew of spammers sending spam about how to make money by sending spam about how to make money sending spam about how to make money fast by sending spam emails about stocks.

    1. Re:Gotta love spammers by nlmille1 · · Score: 0

      He's not a "young hacker spammer," he's a real-life open-outcry securities trader, you insensitive clod!

  20. stock returns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So the US stock market hisorically has returned over 10% a year, current yields on low-risk money market funds is over 5% and US Treasury funds historically have generated at least 5% a year as well.

    So you can invest in a cheap index fund in any of the above and beat what these guys are doing. Or, you could run a pump and dump stock scam and risk huge jail time instead. This also doesn't include paying taxes on all your stock transactions which will lower your return even further. Sounds like a great deal to me.

    The SEC should be able to find these people by the stock transactions pre/post stock spamming campaign. Anyone who tries doing this activity is a complete moron and is going to be caught eventually.

    1. Re:stock returns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So the US stock market hisorically has returned over 10% a year, current yields on low-risk money market funds is over 5% and US Treasury funds historically have generated at least 5% a year as well.


      These guys are earning up to 6% every couple days.
    2. Re:stock returns by dimension6 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up...this is at least the third time someone had to repeat this!

  21. It's better than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The spammer makes about 5% on investment but it only takes a few days to realize the gain. Say the money can be compounded four times a month. If profits were rolled over, at the end of a year the reurn on investment would be nearly 200%. If profits were directly extracted when gained, the annual ROI would be about 160%.

  22. Not a problem by MaelstromX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe I'm out of the mainstream on this but I don't see this as an issue at all.

    I don't like spam any more than anybody else does here but it's an unfortunate fact of life that is here to stay as long as we are using the current e-mail system. Getting mad at people for spamming under this system of total anonymity and lack of accountability is like getting mad at your cat for eating the food you left on the kitchen table before you left. All we can really do is find a way to deal with the spam while we think of a new way to go about things.

    That said, compared to other spams this is relatively benign. Who is hurt here (besides the fact that it clogs our inboxes and spam filters, which as I said is a fact of life and is going to happen anyway)? Are we afraid that people will be tricked into buying these stocks and then lose money when they plummet? Because that sounds to me like a good way to teach people not to take financial advice from complete strangers. The law is not for babying people and shielding them from all discomfort; sometimes people need to take a lesson or two at the school of hard knocks.

    1. Re:Not a problem by hacker · · Score: 1
      I don't like spam any more than anybody else does here but it's an unfortunate fact of life that is here to stay as long as we are using the current e-mail system.

      What's a spam?

      Seriously, since I've put dspam + graymilter on our mailserver, we haven't seen a SINGLE SPAM slip through in several YEARS now. Sure, we get false positives from time to time, but not a single spam slips through, at ALL.

      I don't have to deal with it, and I don't have to change to a different email system either. Problem solved. My users love us for it, we decrease our overall bandwidth for using it, and we gain cpu cycles back since we're not processing junk email we'll end up quarantining anyway.

    2. Re:Not a problem by CrypticSparrow · · Score: 1

      Legally, the problem is one of giving financial advice without a licence. For good reason, this is strictly regulated.

      --
      "It is difficult to catch a black cat in a dark room. Especially if there is no cat there." - Confucius
    3. Re:Not a problem by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I believe that only applies to those that are paid for financial advice. Anyone can give free "advice". You get what you pay for, and usually less...

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  23. Start up OIL COMPANY SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see most all of the stock spam is from OIL COMPANIES!

  24. Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not quite true either. Assuming these people pay taxes that will be a huge hit on their returns. For instance a US investor would get slapped with significant short term capital gains which can be in the neighborhood of 30-40+% depending on what state you live in, etc. Plus there are stock transaction fees on top of this moving in and out of the stock. Finally, there is a significant chance that the SEC may see this activity and be able to trace your recent purchase/sale and find you. Most of these stocks they're hyping are small over the counter shares with very low sales volume/liquidity. It would be very easy for an investigator to find who bought and sold at just the right time to figure out who is running the scam. Yes, this does happen with insider sales BTW and you'll get jail time for it.

    Pump and dump stock scams are not new and the law knows how to deal with people who carry them out. Eventually you'll be caught and you won't be able to spend any of the money behind bars and that's assuming the SEC doesn't seize the ill-gotten assets to begin with.

    1. Re:Not quite by carlosGames · · Score: 0

      of course, all this asuming the guilty people actually live (or the stocks are being used) at the US,

      different countries different laws.

    2. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Criminals paying taxs is a bit of a stretch but has happened I suppose. Transaction fees would need paying however. As far as the SEC goes and as you mention, this scam is about as old as the markets. I still see pump and dump faxs out the machines every morning but for all the laws over the years. These guys know that playing small stocks for comparative chump change keeps them far enough under the radar that the SEC is not going to waste resources with any investigation even though it is true given the power of the SEC and the FBI and the IRS ect., that the perpetrators could be hunted down and brought to justice. It would cost more than the value of the crime. And of course the scammers don't make it easy. Offshore accounts, shell corporations, anonymous tipsters, spammers insulated from the scammers, it is an exercise fostered at a level of complexity polished through the ages.

      Equally interesting with some of these spam mails and faxs is that the people doing the pump and dump 'tell you' they have an 'equity stake' and that you can lose money more easily than you can make it. For the information they spell out for the potential investor, their actions may not in fact be illegal and if that is the case they might well pay the taxs. (30% tax on 200% gain and stay out of jail? Sure why not.)

      Of course you would have to be a moron to get suckered by such obvious scams but there seems no shortage of morons and legislation aimed at protecting them is equally hopeless. Perhaps worse, since the morons get the feeling all the laws and mother SEC is there to protect them so their safe then. Ha! The SEC is a beauracracy that exists to feed it'self first and foremost and not one ladder climber there wants to waste time on the small stuff or gives two hoots about a moron.

    3. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Finally, there is a significant chance that the SEC may see this activity and be able to trace your recent purchase/sale and find you. Most of these stocks they're hyping are small over the counter shares with very low sales volume/liquidity.
      Please, please stop running your mouth when you don't know what the hell you are talking about! These penny stocks are not regulated by the SEC. The SEC will do nothing about it.
  25. Report them! by Kelson · · Score: 1

    Every once in a while a batch of stock spams comes in and I forward a bunch of them in a message to enforcement [at] sec.gov

    I don't know if they actually do anything with the data -- within an hour I get an automatic response thanking me for the report and telling me that their investigations are confidential, and that's it.

  26. long term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    While it is interesting to see the return for the spammer, check out the return for the sucker that buys them. http://www.spamstocktracker.com/

  27. Short the stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you know you're going to lose money, take advantage of the spammer by shorting stock.

    Simple basic economics.

    1. Re:Short the stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These kind of stocks are VERY hard to short.

    2. Re:Short the stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shorting stocks is too risky as your liability can be unlimited. It is much safer to use put options instead.

  28. Then They're Idiots by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 1

    I get 5.05% from an insured HSBC internet savings account. I can get 5.15% from various other similar companies.

    So they spend the time and risk the legal ramifacations of sending millions of SPAM e-mails to get, at best .85% better than a opening a savings account at a bank?

    They're idiots.

    1. Re:Then They're Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call them idiots; they seem to understand math quite a bit better than you do. :-/

    2. Re:Then They're Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sheer stupidity of Slashdot newbs is breaktaking.

    3. Re:Then They're Idiots by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Eh.. Yes, you get that per year. Exactly where was it you got the impression that the quoted returns were per year from?

      Did you read this bit:

      The team found that a spammer who bought shares the day before starting an e-mail campaign and then sold them the day after could make a return on his or her investment of 4.9%.

      How long do you think their campaigns are?

    4. Re:Then They're Idiots by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      You're the idiot. You could make about 2 percent more on not just a insured savings account, but a government guaranteed I-bond. 6% in a few days beats 5% in a year...

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
  29. Use it by morie · · Score: 1

    So, it works. Good to know. Now use their scam in your advantage

    When you recieve the spam, use the system. Wait a day or two, then buy put-options or sell short. What went up will come down, at least the same 4% probably.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    1. Re:Use it by rekoil · · Score: 1

      This brings an interesting question - while it's clearly illegal to pump and dump, is it legal to short stocks for which you've gotten a spam touting? Is the spam run something that would fit the legal definition of public information (particularly if it gets forwarded to n.a.n.a.s.)?

      Also, keep in mind that most brokerages won't let you short penny stocks. There's generally a minimum price per share before you can sell a stock short.

    2. Re:Use it by redcondor · · Score: 1

      Not all stocks can be shorted: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm or http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho 1204.htm Options are only available for a small fraction of securities. Smart spammers would choose securities that cannot be counter-manipulated.

  30. people are dumb by benicillin · · Score: 1

    i think its important to note that people need to actually BUY the stock for the change in price to happen. it's not as simple as spammers who get money via clickthroughs or something like that. this requires you to research a stock, goto your online trading site and actually purchase shares.

    if anyone is at fault here, it's the people who are reading this spam, interpreting it as fact and purchasing these stocks.

    you cant stop spammers and you DEFINITELY can't stop stupidity...

    --
    "i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
  31. Why do that? by Cybert4 · · Score: 0

    Why not work toward the singularity and watch people throw money your way because you're doing something so important?

  32. does this mean by doctor+handshake · · Score: 1

    they DO have a runner? and I SHOULD buy now?

  33. Several BILLION counts of stock manipulation... by D4C5CE · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...should be able to trigger a rather thorough search for those responsible (who can hardly not leave quite a significant paper&data trail), and land them in jail for ages - so where's the prosecution? Their case can only be helped by identity theft typically additionally committed by many spammers.

    Going after these subjects also beats confiscating Jaguars and digging for spam gold... especially if they're actually making 6% in a few days, per campaign.

    Who cares that spam may not be a crime in some places - securities scams of these proportions certainly are, and no less if perpetrated by eMail.

  34. You're the ideal victim for these spammers by billstewart · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sure, there are people who actually believe the H0t St0xx T1pZ they receive in their email, because if the saw it on the internet it must be true, but (while remembering Mencken's advice) I'd hope that they're not the majority of people who buy the stock.

    People like you who *know* it's a scam and are trying to get ahead of the other suckers are an even better market - as with the Nigerian-corrupt-official scams, you not only get duped, but you're in no position to bitch about it :-) It's basically like trying to be in the early phases of a Ponzi or pyramid scam.

    Unlike the other scams, it is possible to make money on this by selling short, but if the scammer's only making 4-6% on the deal, it's pretty risky, and it may be hard to get brokers willing to do short sales on worthless penny stocks without paying enough in commissions to eat up your loss. On the other hand, it should certainly be easy to collect data on this kind of thing, because if you're like me, you get a couple of new stock scam offers a day, and you could track the prices after you get them.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  35. If they spend the money spamming... by Shadyman · · Score: 1

    ...Why don't they just buy the shares themselves?

  36. Purdue? by breakitdown · · Score: 1

    Isn't that where the chickens come from?

    --
    -Michael, AKA Frankie.
  37. My wifes going to kill me by LRBenson · · Score: 1

    That was SPAM!?! The email promised great fortunes to be had with those insider tips. Man, how do I explain the 3000 dollars I spent out of her quilting fund was for generic v!@gr@ stock...

  38. mod parent vastly underrated by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    People have been posting repeatedly that you should short sell against spammers pumping and dumping penny stocks; the parent post is a very accurate warning against doing that.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  39. Wake up! by Dilbert48 · · Score: 1

    This is pure nonsense. If the spam scam works, the spammer gets money from someone and that someone has to be the one who receives the spam - ie, you. You could work out the model of how you lose but it's sort of self-evident beyond a reasonable. By the time you get the spam, it's too late to buy.

  40. Sell Short by NutMan · · Score: 1

    I've often figured that the stock would actually go down, and if I had more time I would track some of these.

    If they DID go down most of the time, you might actually be able to profit by selling short whenever you got a new spam touting some stock.

    If enough people sold short, the price would drop quickly and you could actually hurt the spammer.

  41. The raw data by iElucidate · · Score: 1

    Raw data and graphs of activity are available here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stockspam/

  42. Even Monkeys picking Stocks can do better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The historical averages for NYSE are 10% and NASDAQ 12%...

    so... note to spammers... at 4% to 6%, you are seriously UNDERPERFORMING THE MARKET...
    you can go to your local bank and buy a CD with returns of 4% to 6% without any effort at all.

    Spam has never worked... particularly email spam... nobody has ever bought anything from an email spam

  43. Let's get our units straight, shall we? by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1
    A recent study on spam has revealed that spammers see a return between 4.9% and 6% when selling stocks they have bought low and spammed the world with.

    Is that a 4.9% to 6% return per year? Per month? Per indeterminate period of time? It makes a huge difference.

    This reminds me of lines like "the average home uses 10 killowatts of electricity per year."

    Start making sense, Media! ;)
    --
    If you can read this sig, you're too close.
  44. The article does seem to assume finance knowledge by The+Mutant · · Score: 1

    From the article it would apppear that the return is quote per trade, so assuming a holding period (i.e., the amount of time their capital is locked up) of two days, a return of 5% over this period is equivalent to an annual return of roughly 500% ( (5%/2+1)^252), or 503.9% precisely, with 252 being the number of trading days in a year.

    It's probably easiest to think of this as a very high rate deposit product that you invest in at 5% over a two day period, and reinvest every two days for entire year. Your effective return over the year is much, much higher than 5%.

    A 500% return on your capital? Nice work if you can get it.

    In finance, we almost always find such supernormal returns are indicative of illegal activity.

  45. One interesting thing about stock spam by kill-1 · · Score: 1

    One interesting thing about stock spam is that the spam email doesn't need to contain a link to an online shop or something where you can actually buy the advertised product. That makes it even harder to track.

    1. Re:One interesting thing about stock spam by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Not just that, it even doesn't include human/filter readable text anymore. They do some gif (or html) trick so the spam is in fact a "picture" which would require OCR. I am not sure about OCR as all OCR software runs perfect on 300 DPI, not some pixel text.

      Only way is to find/enable respected RBL lists.

    2. Re:One interesting thing about stock spam by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I've just set up a SpamAssassin plugin called FuzzyOcr, which is designed for exactly this purpose. It converts the image into a bitmap format in multiple ways (including analyzing individual frames of an animated GIF, since spammers sometimes use that trick), as well as various color filters, then uses gocr to convert the results to text, which is matched against a (customizable) word list with Perl's String::Approx module.

      The OCR is terrible. I suggest using the latest developer release of gocr, as it seems to work a lot better than the previous versions. Fuzzy matching helps to match words even when the OCR doesn't work well... but it also finds false positives, which can be a problem if you receive e-mailed screen shots that include any text at all.

      What this doesn't handle is image-based spam where the image (of the text) has been split into multiple images, which are pieced back together with HTML.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  46. Geez! Only Slightly Better than My Savings Acct. by queenb**ch · · Score: 1

    (sarcasm)
    Wow! A whole whopping 6%!
    (/sarcasm)

    I get a 5% return on my CD and I don't have to send out email and try to manipulate the stock market or do anything that might land me in jail.

    2 cents,

    QueenB

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
  47. How stupid are you? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    4% return on investment in ONE DAY doesn't even compare with 10% return PER YEAR.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  48. Interest in percentages... by phil.bachman · · Score: 1

    What really amazes me about these replies is not the percentage of people who have gone without realizing that the 6% is a daily number, but instead the large percentage of those replying to posters having made the first mistake, and in their corrections saying something along the lines of: "No, it's 6%/day, like in 200 days of trading that's 1200%, idiot..." Umm, ok, so I saw one reply which got it right out of significantly more who were trying to correct others. Anyways, let's assume that the tax losses each day are %50 of what was gained, so our effective daily percentage gain is 3. It's farking compound interest, unless you're retarded and pull your earnings and only invest the same initial principle each day. This means at %3 per compounding period (the trading day) and with 200 compounding periods, we have Pf = Pi*(1.03)^200 = 369.35 for Pi = 1. Now if it were really a %6 daily gain (and tax was not an issue), we have Pf = Pi*(1.06)^200 = 115125.90, that's %11,512,590 annual gain (a bit better than a %6 CD). Not too shabby. I guess it's no wonder so many people fall so quickly into credit debt.

  49. The real question is the stocks' performance by FishinDave · · Score: 1

    Did anyone bother to see if the spammed stock picks made money?

  50. making money from spam by zmn3lst · · Score: 1

    The idea of "jumping on the bandwagon" seems pretty risky to me. However, there is a site I found (www.stopstockspam.com) that attempts to day trade the touted stocks and earn a consistant profit. I guess its new cause the first trade happened recently. But I would be curious to see if this guy makes any money doing this and puts all of our speculation to rest.