Adding Electronic Tools to Your Arsenal
By David Feldman at 19 June, 2009, 6:00 am
A talk at last week’s Reverse Merger Conference by investor relations firm Agoracom’s head George Tsiolis was very interesting indeed. He talked about the value of Web 2.0 and networking capabilities that many are not taking advantage of. In particular for public companies that he works with, he has found these tools to be most effective ways to spread the word about his clients’ businesses.
He asked me to join him on stage to talk about this humble blog and other ways I have used the Internet to grow and sustain my network. I reviewed the history of this blog (we’ve been here since November 2006!) and how it has grown to about 3,000 professionals visiting each month. Who even knew there were that many people around who are interested in such a relatively narrow topic! I explained that through Google’s analytic tools I can tell what countries people are from, what network they came from (for example I know that the SEC monitors us here!), how often they are here and for how long. This helps me to focus the topics I write about based on who I know is here.
I then talked about my experiences with other tools such as LinkedIn as very effective ways to keep up with people. In particular, the groups on LinkedIn have been very valuable. In addition, we talked about Twitter and Facebook. I noted that I really use Facebook for personal stuff, reconnecting with old friends and letting new friends know what I’m up to, while others do use it for business. I admitted that I have yet to find a real purpose for Twitter in my life, although I am on there (my username is DNFesquire). George uses Twitter a great deal and finds it a very effective way to communicate exciting snippets about his clients.
And yes I explained that all these tools have indeed helped me grow my law business. So thanks to you guys who have gotten to know me electronically (or through the book) initially. I look forward to continuing to make you all proud!
My friend George Tsiolis just sent me a link that includes the audio of the Q&A session between George and me at the RM conference earlier this month. Give a listen:
http://blog.agoracom.com/2009/06/26/reverse-merger-2009-presentation-now-live
I started on Wall Street with one of the two remaining independent Invesrment Banking firms remaining and then moving to the other. After retiring and moving to Florida, I have been involved in every aspect of reverse mergers and recently observed a discouraging trend. That is the use of Footnote Note 172 shells as vehicles for reverse mergers. The logic escapes me. Why toy with the rules when there are front door options?
I read your book and though I prefer the use of Rule 419 Shells, your preference for Form 10 also works well. I would be interested in your view in working for change, especially in today’s economic environment and shortage of IPOs for mid-market companies, for Rule 419 Shells (not SPACs) to allow trading on the OTC BB. Will that ever happen?
Ron Davis
Hi Ron and thanks for the nice words! It is funny you mention that. I have been honing a proposal I hope to present to the SEC staff to consider modernizing Rule 419. I’m not necessarily for trading prior to a merger, but am working on a proposal to streamline the process of getting a deal approved quickly so that upon merging there will be immediate trading. Seems to me most players don’t need trading prior to a merger, but many would prefer that trading commence upon a merger rather than the few months later that it can sometimes take.
David
I agree. Manufactrued shells that trade prior to merger only confuse the issue. How can an entity have a market cap of , say , $5-million when there is nothing in the company to warrant such a price? They sell in the shell market for, in my opinion, inflated prices, but not in the millions.
Trading immediately following effectiveness of post effective amendment works fine for me.
Thanks for all your work!!
Ron
Speaking of 419 reform, how about the idea of getting rid of the 18 month merger requirement? Instead, the registration statement could specify a time frame to finalize a merger. If potential investors think it’s too long, they have the option of not investing.
David, I do believe the time period should be longer, but I don’t believe it’s realistic to think we can eliminate it altogether. There was much abuse in the 1980s where investors’ money in public shells was simply not put to work. But if it were maybe 2-1/2 or 3 years maybe that would provide more flexibility. Thanks for the comment!
David