Blinkx, Roger Lawson & ShareSoc – Time to come clean?

Comments

1. ---

   John

   22 April 2014, 11:00

   I thought I remembered the name Roger Lawson. He was on TV in 2007 saying ignore the debts etc and lack of readies, Northern Rock has all these fine assets and customer base worth much much much more than the 0 p share price, so the taxpayer should be paying him a much higher price for his shares. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7887796.stm That shows the quality of his opinions.

2. ---

   Richard J

   22 April 2014, 11:48

   Roger Lawson & Tom Winnifrith. Now THAT really is a match made in heaven!

3. ---

   wildrides

   22 April 2014, 12:33

   Lawson retired at 50 to live off his investments ………. obviously that means anything he says is mired in self interest and anything he does not say is mired in conflicted interest.

4. ---

   Stan Grierson

   23 April 2014, 09:59

   Blinkx and ShareSoc comments on the company.

   These are the facts about the past comments from Roger Lawson, and ShareSoc, on Blinkx.

   Roger has previously reported on Blinkx in a number of both public and private forums and in our newsletter, which is provided to members only. For avoidance of doubt, he has not sought to hide the fact that he has a very small shareholding in the company and this may be inferred from his comments. For example, his reports of Blinkx AGMs make it clear he was a shareholder at the time. When asked, for example on Motley Fool, and to Doc Holiday, Roger has confirmed this fact. The newsletter states “The Editor of this publication and other contributors may hold one or more stocks mentioned therein”.

   Blinkx has been subsequently commented on in later ShareSoc newsletter Editions such as in February 2014 when Roger reported on the Edelman blog post (which otherwise our members may not have known about). It pointed out some of the errors Edelman made which others have also noted. All ShareSoc newsletters are reviewed by our board of directors before publication.
   ShareSoc does not give investment advice and none of the articles ShareSoc has published on Blinkx give any advice about the merits of investing in the stock, or shorting it (unlike the comments by Prof. Edelman).

   ShareSoc’s web site and blogs are covered by our legal terms and conditions which spell out very clearly that we do not give investment advice. But we do promise to correct any errors that are reported to us. To date nobody has complained about the factual content of any of our reports on Blinkx.

   Roger also commented on Prof. Edelman’s presentation at the UK Investor Show and does not agree with Tom that the presentation by Edelman, or the comments by Tom at that event, were unbiased. It was certainly the case that there was little time for questions (Roger did not manage to get a single one in), nor was there anyone providing a contrary view of the complex technical subjects covered by Edelman.

   Tom mentions that one of his comments on our blog was removed. It was removed because the moderator considered it to be defamatory. We reserve the right to remove blog posts which we consider defamatory, inappropriate or for any other reason. This is clearly spelled out at the foot of our blog page.

   In summary, Roger and ShareSoc have attempted to report the news from Blinkx to help inform our readers, and have attempted to sort out which, if any, of the allegations made by Edelman stand up to scrutiny. We have reported both Edelman’s allegations and the rebuttals by the company, so that our Members can form their own conclusions.

   Roger has been critical of the debate on some of the issues, and what appears to be a concerted shorting campaign on the stock, the financial incentive apparently given to Edelman by investors with an interest in the stock to report information of use to them, and other aspects of this affair.

   ShareSoc attempts to provide unbiased information and comments where appropriate, to our Members and others. But we do not ask our directors to stand aside from investing in stocks (a pretty unrealistic expectation if our Members desire informed comment when the Directors of ShareSoc are unpaid). Sometimes the best people to report on a stock are those holding it as they often know more about the history of the company and its current activities than others. Anyone who wishes to judge for themselves on the merits of our reporting should join ShareSoc as a Member as Members get access to a searchable archive or all past Newsletters.

   Blinkx has never presented directly to our members but we do have other companies present where again very specific warnings are given about the content of such presentations (see the mention of Company Presentations in our Legal conditions for example). Those apply to our own events in London, and of course to the prospective event being jointly run with Hardman in Leeds.

   I am glad that Tom has given me the opportunity to clarify how ShareSoc operates, but as so often he has gone over the top in jumping to conclusions about the activities of the organisation. Blinkx is just one of many companies we report on every month, and it is unfortunate that the events at Blinkx have been blown up out of all proportion to the importance of the company in the market (and to the scale of ShareSoc director interests in the company) – probably because it is one of those AIM stocks where there is a very high level of speculation.

   ShareSoc has a commitment to protect the interests of stock market investors, and if that means providing more independent commentary on stocks that seem to be the subject of unreasonable attacks by those with specific agendas, then so be it.

   Stan Grierson, ShareSoc Chairman

5. ---

   Tom Winnifrith

   23 April 2014, 10:10

   Stan

   You simply do not get it. Saying one holds a share in one piece & then not mentioning it again is NOT disclosure. Many folks will have read just one of Roger’s numerous puff pieces on Blinkx ( the Edelman april 6 one). You need to declare ownership on ALL pieces. That is transparency.

   My comment on Roger’s article was not defamatory neither was that of Nigel Owens. Both were removed simply because we disagreed with Lawsons article. In may case I merely pointed out that no-one other than Roger construed my description of BLNX’s lawyers as bully boys as defamatory. Even the BB lawyers do not think they are.

   So the only defamatorey remark was that by Roger saying that I made a defamatory remark!

   The truth is that Roger did not like the fact that Owens and I disagreed with his views so canned his posts.

   At shareprophets we will continue to insists that authors declare all interests in all articles written. If you want to operate a different version of transparency that is your call. I think it a mistake but it is your call.

   You still have not explained why Roger ( who does not tip shares) says the 3 companies at your jv with Hardman offer “interesting investment cases” nor in the interests of disclosure revealed the terms of that jv (given that the PLCs are paying Hardman to attend).

   I could go on but I am on holiday. Suffice to say I do not regard your procedures as transparent and Roger’s suppression of v iews that are dsifferent to his and adverse to a stock where he holds a barely disclosed position do not reflect well on ShareSoc.

   T

6. ---

   Roger Lawson

   23 April 2014, 11:18

   You are unlikely to get a further response from Stan Grierson on this because he is on holiday too. Your views about what it is appropriate to say on blogs is different to mine. One can argue about whether your comments were defamatory or not for a long time, but they were certainly impolite and rude comments about someone who was probably just trying to act in the best interests of their client and under their instructions. I certainly don’t want the ShareSoc blogs to degenerate into the standard of many internet boards.

7. ---

   Tom Winnifrith

   23 April 2014, 11:50

   Roger

   At last. My comments were clearly not defamatory. So the only defaming here was in YOUR article in suggesting that I had defamed. I merely pointed that out and you killed the post just as you killed the other one disagreeing with you.

   Yes I was rude to the lawyer in calling him a bully boy. But since he sent me a threatening and menacing letter without checking all his facts, he deserved it. I take no prisoners when folks behave in this way. You presumably believe in just lying back, taking it & thinking of England?

   As to not allowing your comments section to degenerate into the standard of others.. Well whatever I say about BBs they allow a free expression of opinion. On the R Lawson blog you can apparently only post if you agree with Roger. Whatever makes you happy.

   Our views on what to say on blogs are indeed different. I believe a writer has a moral duty to declare a vested interest in EVERY article. You don’t.

   Best wishes

   Tom

8. ---

   wildrides

   23 April 2014, 14:22

   Lawson needs to dispose of all his share holdings or resign his post at share soc .

   Other wise whats the point in listening to him .

9. ---

   John

   23 April 2014, 21:14

   Instead of buying crap shares and then windbag when it all goes wrong, It is lot simpler to buy good shares in the first place,.