There exist almost no business models that support pursuit of information about corporate fraud.

The regulatory and enforcement apparatus did not catch Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, et al which is not a surprise given the realities of who controls government (hint same folks as above.)

We have the case of short sellers tipping Fortune/WSJ regarding Enron, but it seems unlikely these “success stories” address the entire story.

Sharesleuth may not have found a business model to turn this around, but they deserve some credit for trying.

I understand it’s not primarily focused on being a trading operation, in the way Foster Winans’ Wall Street Journal column was not primarily focused on being a trading operation. But it seems that it’s been outright declared that if trading profits can be made along the way, they will be made. And that’s not considered an ethical conflict, it’s considered a productive sideline.

Do you at least give the amateur researchers a commission/finders-fee? Shouldn’t they get a piece of the deal? 1/2

Dan, I’m not saying the following to be nasty, but remember some of the discussion of FON – someone said approximately “A conflict of interest is not removed by disclosing the conflict”.
Disclosure is important, yes. but it’s not the last word, by far.

Just to clarify an issue that Seth raised, Sharesleuth.com is not intended as a trading operation.

The original concept was simply to publish an electronic newsletter that would be aimed at traders, money managers, etc., and charge a subscription fee for access.

But rather than solicit subscriptions for a product with no track record, we decided to publish our research as a blog, prove its value and then see where we could generate revenue.

Of course, we also think our reporting will generate content for Mark Cuban’s television and movie operations.

We’ll use paid stringers to do field reporting, primarily for stories that I will write.

The amateur researchers I mentioned are people with whom I’ve been corresponding for years. In essence, they provide tips and some supporting documentation and I take it from there.

The disclosure to which I refer is the fact that they’re apparently planning to trade based on what they learn. I do think it’s an issue, and said so.

Let me get this straight – they want people to work for free(?) (“stringers and a global network of amateur researchers”), to develop tradeable information, which they will then use for their own profit.

But this is disclosed! So, no problem (“Not any more. Not in this world.”).

Dan, do you understand why I’m sour and cynical about this stuff?