This whole nopoo/rick millssituation has really got me thinking...

We have seen that nopoo's client list (which is proof of $8,000/yr payments) is also where he has focussed his efforts - posting on virtually all the boards of his clients - but not disclosing the fact he is paid by the companies he is doing the posting for.

We have seen his articles (making of a monster for example) which are full of unabashed pumping that the companies could never dream of saying. Its all public record.

Now he is exposed as working for these companies without disclosing the fact he is employed by them. Is this not a big egg-on-the-face situation not only for himself, but also for the companies who hired him.

Could the regulatory organizations / exchanges be ok with this type of promotion? Do they not have a regulatory responsibility to be up front with the market? Is hiring someone to write an article as biased as the carmax monster article, and then have him bombard the public message boards with pumpy posts (pretending to be joe public) an acceptable practice? The companies paid for it, so ultimately are they also responsible for the content? What is your take?

I don't know much about securities law or regulations, but I would be a bit suprised if this is acceptable?

Can anyone that knows more about these regulations chime in here?

Things are shady enough on the venture (HFT for example) and investors already have so much to contend with as an investor - how can this be allowable? The Venture is trying to improve their reputation.

Maybe it is all OK to do, I don't know - but it doesn't pass the smell test IMHO...

Just look at AG and see how effective it is - even after exposure he is lauded with credibility?

Here is a hypothetical example to make my point
:
What would have happened if Vette was exposed as being paid by Copper Fox? The cr@p would have hit the fan!

How is this any different?

Anybody want to give their take?