FAFUFNIK

Google at the Mercy of Merger Arbitrageurs in On2 Technologies Acquisition

The fact that, to my knowledge, no governmental entity responsible for monitoring and regulating the stock market has responded to the hundreds of desperate calls for HELP from the sacrificial lambs (On2 stockholders) being corraled AND LED TO SLAUGHTER,by the management and BOD of both On2 and Google, attests, loudly and clearly to the unbelievable malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance of duty of all of the SEC, FINRA, THE JUSTICE DEPT., ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER AGENCY LEADERSHIP.
The President, in appointing Ms. Mary Schapiro to the Chairmanship of the SEC last January, is just as culpable for what is happening to On2 Technologies----in the almost one year since she was appointed, all the possible abuses and violations of law and regulations by short sellers have continued apace, contributing, disastrously, to the predation visited upon these stockholders, which the proposed deal represents.
God help all of us and America!!!!

Resurgent Deal Flow Should Be Viewed Within Context of Sluggish M&A Market

Your remarks about the proposed sale of ON2 Technology to Google has not been approved by th stockholders---over 50m shares have already been pledged to vote no on the message boards. There are more than one lawsuit active to stop the deal. Longterm stockholders have been organizing since the deal was announced on August 5th--- less than one day before the best quarterly report in history for ONT. and a barrage of unanswered complaints to the acting ceo at the conference call the following day.
Please adjust the language of your release accordingly to be fair , honest and accurate to the market at large. thanks. gcvlahos@comcast .net

On2 Shareholders File Lawsuits to Block Google Acquisition

very shallow item by Mr. Rayburn, adds nothing to readers' knowledge of the situation and the negative tone of some remarks reflect the long term dislike of Ont investors and the company they are invested in. I have read many negative posts regarding his lack of fairness and objectivity regarding this topic over the years--this is the first time I am adding my voice to those and calling on him to do his homework before editorializing about a situation which he has never studied enough to hold forth on it with any degree of creditility.
For starters, he could do some studying of the history of High Frequency Compudterized Trading and naked short selling controlling the; price of the stock since the change in the Uptick rule which unleashed the unabated attack by unknown entities which culminated in the setting of the price of the stock at a level which distorted the sale price far beyond what a true picture of the real investor (as opposed to manipulator) supply and demand, if not prevented by the aforesaid, would be.
It would be a true service to his readers if he were to spend some time and effort to look into the background of this whole matter rather than just spinning off a quick, superficial blurb to fill some vacant space on this site.
Could you, Mr. Rayburn, contribute, to the common good, an in- depth, based on some research, article on the disastrous effect of HFCT and naked short selling on all investors in a market which has been advertised as " FAIR, OPEN AND HONEST". I read of a university study last week claiming that HFCT is now responsible for 70% of the trading on the stock market and that once the government extension of benefits to workers and other similar temporary increases in spendable cash by citizens later this Fall ends, that this 70% will disappear. The end result, they claim, will be another disaster in the markets with only the remaining 30% of traders left to feed the action and a resultant severe drop in the values of the stocks traded. This is extremely scary and its import is far bigger than On2 and Google for, not just us investors, but for the whole country and world. I
This is a serious request and I would love to read more about it from you and other commentators on the markets. Thank you.

Google / On2: Deal Insights

RIGHT ON-----YOUR POINTS ARE ABSOLUTELY ON THE MONEY---THE REAL STORY HERE IS THE INJUSTICE PERPETRATED BY THE TWO COMPANIES BASING THEIR PRICE FOR THE SALE ON STOCK MARKET DATA WHICH REFLECTS THE ABSOLUTELY FALSE IMPRESSION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND PRICE DISCOVERY BECAUSE 70-90% OF THE DAILY TRADING IS DONE BY HIGH FREQUENCE COMPUTERIZED TRADERS AND NAKED SHORT SELLERS---If the author is really interested in reporting the truth, here is an absolutely perfect opportunity to do some research into the trading history of ON2 to unmask the entities who are doing most trading---having watched Level II daily, several hours a day, for the two years since Christopher Cox enabled selling on the downtick. Anyone who has not done this should not be commenting on the reliability of the apparent share price of this stock---casual observation will reveal nothing, especially to the uninitiated observer of trading on the stock market. Do your homework or do not deign to recite before the class or the teacher will order you to SIT DOWN.


On Aug 10 11:11 AM On2 Shareholder wrote:

> Thank you for picking up this story, it is an interesting one. <br/>
>
> However, I would have expected a share-price analysis from Seeking
> Alpha to at least note that On2's shares, traded as ONT on the AMEX,
> have been the subject of brutal and predatory bear-attacks for over
> two years. The ONT share price has been hammered down, not because
> of a loss in confidence by long-term retail investors, not because
> of a change in the company's prospects, which have never been better,
> but simply because someone with deep pockets wanted ONT shares to
> be cheap, and they weren't afraid to break the law to get their way.
>
>
> The anger and dissent with this deal heard from ONT shareholders
> is not just bad-loser rant-and-ramble, nor simple conspiracy theory.
> ONT was extremely aggressively shorted down from its highs of 2007,
> and much of the shorting was illegally naked, as documented by the
> regular occurences of ONT on AMEX's RegSHO lists. There actually
> were criminals at work trying to crush this company out of existence,
> similar to the experiences at Overstock.com and Dendreon, as documented
> at Patrick Byrne's website deepcapture.com.
>
> As with most published news these days, it pays to go out to the
> web to do a little digging to see if one can get closer to the truth.
> In this case, yes, you have published a factually correct article.
> ONT did hit a low of 0.11. But you missed the real story here, which
> is the one that answers *why* the stock was trading there, despite
> the imminent turnaround to profitability, the excellent prospects
> for exponential profit growth, and the broad acceptance of On2 technology
> by large industry players, to the chagrin of other large players.
> On2 simply got caught in a clash of the titans: Apple, Adobe, MPEG-LA,
> Sun/Oracle, all the phone and cable companies that provide internet
> access, NetEase and other Chinese players all had vested interests
> in seeing On2 either live or die, not just Google. One or more of
> these large players would appear to have stooped to criminal behaviour
> to gain advantage in the high-stakes internet video battleground.
>
>
> You wrote: "The buyout... teaches a valuable lesson. Great technology
> does not ensure a great trade. Risk-reward has to be measured by
> stock price levels, fundamental ratios (especially price or enterprise
> value-to-sales), news flow, and event risk."
>
> But when "event risk" must necessarily include "risk that criminals
> will illegally manipulate the share price" then the public markets
> are no longer to be trusted. If SeekingAlpha chooses to support a
> world in which this is the case, continue to report in this fashion.
>
>
> But if Seeking Alpha would like to see a world in which private retail
> investors can trust, and therefore will invest their savings in the
> public markets, then dig deeper, because you have missed the real
> story here.
>
> The interesting question is which one of the various companies and
> groups above might have been responsible for the criminal manipulation
> of On2 Technologies publicly traded stock.
>
> Thank you in advance for following up on this.

Stock Shock- The Movie Update

can't wait to see it-----finally, someone has done something about the biggest ripoff of American (and other) investors by the obscenely powerful and arrogant, cynical, and rapacious generation of financial professionals in history. The true test of the trustworthiness of our government will be what elected officials do about this scandalous nonfeasance of duty BY THEM and their appointees. Some of us have been screaming and hollering to a deaf audience for years about this situation only to be given the HARRY MARKOPOLOS TREATMENT ---a pat on the head and a kick out the door.
I am praying but not hopeful----this film, if plastered over every screen in th Universe might help, but apparently, there is a formidable effort to prevent its wide distribution, We'll see!!!!

Graft for Enterprise Software in Massachusetts: Two Sad Histories Intersect

massachusetts----this is the home of the mafia---it used to be the Irish-Jewish mafia blaming it all on the Italians---now "they" finally let the Italians in and they have learned their lessons well----so they are fair game. This state stinks----"they" are all in cahoots, allied against all the unafilliated citizens who can be milked for the benefit of the REAL MAFIA--POLS, BIG BUSINESS, AND PUBLIC UNION LEADERS AND ALL THEIR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES---I REPEAT ---THIS STATE STINKS AND THE REVOLUTION IS COMING BUT THEY THINK THEY CAN "HANDLE IT"----THINK CHUTZPAH, HUBRIS, SUPREME NARCISSISM----.

In the Wake of Bear: I-Bank Regulation Now in Fed's Hands

In all the talk about Bear Stearns fiasco I do not see any talk about what facilitated the unbelievably rapid descent of the stock price. How much of the credit for that phenomenon can be attributed to the change which took effect on July 7,2007, namely, allowing short selling on the downtick, by the SEC???? To me as an ordinary investor, this is a bigger issue for the survival of the markets than Bear Stearns alone---comments please.