The Peter Leeds Penny Stocks Project

by Roland Hulme

The Exchange Coffee House was created in tribute of the 18th Century coffee houses of colonial America - where politics, business and finance were discussed and rowdily debated (most commonly over ale, rather than coffee.) So far, we've dedicated a lot of space towards political discussion - but none to financial matters. Today that changes, with the launch of the most ambitious project the Exchange Coffee House has ever embarked on: The Peter Leeds project.

Is Peter Leeds a scam, or the real deal?

For those of you who don't know who he is, Peter Leeds is touted at "the Penny Stock professional", author of Invest in Penny Stocks: A Guide to Profitable Trading and owner of PennyStocks.com; where he offers a subscription service promoting listed stocks that are trading for under $5.

Peter Leeds is wildly successful in this role - with over 30,000 subscribers to his website and a litany of media appearances under his belt, including regular spots on NBC, Fox News and CBS.

Perhaps most famously, he was invited by the American Stock Exchange to be a guest speaker; establishing him as a legitimate figure in the sometimes shady arena of penny stocks.


But as Jim Kramer, of Mad Money, is ample proof of - television appearances don't mean you know what you're talking about; nor that investors should listen to the advice you give.

Which led me to ask the question: Is the financial advice Peter Leeds gives any good?

To that end, I bought and read his book, Invest in Penny Stocks: A Guide to Profitable Trading. It's a quick read that gives the fledgling investor some great insight into the mechanics of trading stocks; and contains some very important advice.

Perhaps most importantly, he outlines that the "penny stocks" he recommends and trades are always listed stocks from the NASDAQ, AMEX or New York Stock Exchange.  He warns investors to stay well clear of anything sold on the OTCBB or Pink Sheets; as he feels the majority of those are penny stock scams (and if my experience trading is any indication, he's absolutely right.)

But I agreed with the most common criticism of his book - that Invest in Penny Stocks: A Guide to Profitable Trading reads like an advertisement for his penny stocks subscription service. Throughout the book, it tells you what you should be looking for in a potential stock purchase, but he doesn't give you the information most of us need to find such stocks. The answer, it is heavily implied, is to be found by investing in his subscription service.

Now this is where Peter Leeds becomes a victim of his own success. Running Google searches for Peter Leeds Review or Penny Stocks Review or even Peter Leeds Scam invariably drives one back to his ubiquitous website, Pennystocks.com, which means it's impossible to get an impartial, independent evaluation of whether the service he offers is worth the money or not.

Instead, you're always driven to his website; where you're given the dog and pony show about why you should sign up.

Aside from that, you're directed for forums where investors weigh in with a heavy-handed: "Never subscribe for stock picks" which might well be good advice; but since they're not enrolled with Peter Leeds they're not really qualified to say.

Hence the creation of the Peter Leeds Project on the Exchange Coffee House - a totally impartial, fair and balanced evaluation of the Peter Leeds Penny Stocks subscription service that will give people the information they're looking for; namely whether it's any good or not.

To this end, I will be subscribing to Peter Leed's penny stocks program and investing in some of the stock picks he makes. I will report here what my verdict of the service - and the stock picks - ultimately is.

Before I begin, though, I need to make some things very clear:

• I am not involved, affiliated, partnered or endorsed in any way by Peter Leeds or pennystocks.com. This is an entirely independent, impartial review of the service - and the verdict I render will be absolutely honest.
• I have purchased Invest in Penny Stocks: A Guide to Profitable Trading with my own money. I will subscribe to Peter Leeds penny stocks service with my own money. Any investment I make in stock Peter Leeds recommends will be with my own money (and in a very limited capacity.) 

Hopefully that establishes that I have no vested or financial interest in being anything other than scrupulously honest about Peter Leed's subscription program.

I will admit that I am hoping his program is legitimate, because then I will be able to make money off his recommendations. However, if it is not I will report so here.

In the interest of professionalism, I will be abiding to the followings rules while operating the Peter Leeds project:

• Peter Leeds makes his living by recommending stocks to paying subscribers. Therefore I will not be "giving away" his product by listing his recommendations here.
• Neither will I print specific stock prices or information that will enable them to be identified. I will refer to stocks only by the date on which he recommended them, and round up to within one or two percentage points how much they climb or sink.

Finally, I will answer the one question I've been asked ever since I envisioned the Peter Leeds project - "what's in it for me?"

The answer, my friends, is very simple: If the Peter Leeds Penny Stocks program is actually legitimate, I intend to make money by investing in his recommendations. If the program is not legitimate, I intend to let people know - and that this verdict was reached objectively and independently.

Why would I risk my own money by buying a subscription to his service - and possibly investing in his recommendations? Easy - I will see that money again.

The Exchange Coffee House sells advertising - and the traffic I anticipate getting by way of launching the Peter Leeds project should cover the costs of subscribing to the program at the very least. My intention is to ensure that I am not out of pocket no matter whether Peter Leed's penny stocks program turns out to be legitimate, or just what the people Googling Peter Leeds scam feared it would be.

Watch this space. The first update is coming soon.

A Reality Check for SOPA Opponents

by Roland Hulme

Today, sites like Wikipedia will be blacked out in protest of the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA.) 

I copied and pasted this picture without attribution.

This poorly written bill will give copyright holders the opportunity to sue websites that post copyrighted material - even if it's uploaded by users, and not the website owners themselves.

In addition, it can force search engines like Google to block links to sites that host copyrighted material overseas.

At its worst, the bill could even see kids who upload videos to YouTube of them singing cover versions of copyrighted songs face prosecution.

Nobody is going to argue that SOPA is a badly worded, draconian act - but let's just stop before we all jump on the "Bill Bad!" bandwagon.

SOPA may be a bad bill, but it exists for a legitimate reason. The Internet has made it ridiculously easy to steal, share, disseminate and distribute copyrighted material and the it's killing those of us who attempt to make a living by creating things.

I found this out first hand when I started to discover articles, blogs and columns I'd written appear in other places - copied and pasted and passed off as other people's work.

At a magazine I helped start, my colleagues found this out when pictures from their magazine (which was only available in printed format) started appearing on people's Tumblr feeds without prior approval.

Right now, thousands of people illegally download songs, music and video games through bittorrent and other peer-to-peer sharing services without giving thought to the fact that they are basically stealing them.

"Tube" sites give users the opportunity to upload entire episodes of TV shows, or complete films, that people can then watch without paying for a cable bill, DVD rental or download. Yes, it's forbidden - and the hosting site will eventually remove it when they discover it - but it goes on with such frequency that it's essentially impossible to police.

And the problem is, this all slowly erodes the ability for creative people to make a living through what they create. Artists expend time, money and effort to create something that others want to enjoy - and some of those people enjoy it so much that they pass it onto their friends for free; robbing the artists of the revenue they need to keep making what they make.

Even worse, the nature of the Internet has made piracy so ubiquitous that most people don't even think they're doing anything wrong. That's the real issue I have with opponents of SOPA. Too many of them don't seem to get the fact that you can't just take other people's stuff and do with it what you will.

And the Internet's to blame in other ways, as well. Just take Tumblr, for example. I have a particular issue with that website because it's essentially streamlined the theft and dissemination of copyrighted material.

People see pictures, videos or words that they like and can distribute them to thousands of people with just the click of a mouse button; often without attribution and almost always without payment.

And, even worse, they then pat themselves on the back for their creativity in doing so.

There are people who think that by creating a Tumblr page and copying and pasting other people's stuff onto it they're somehow "creating" something of their own. They're not. They're just parasites feeding off the creativity and originality of others.

Don't get me wrong - I've been as bad as the rest of them. I used to run a wildly successful blog called Renaissance Babes, which received hundreds or occasionally thousands of hits a day. All I did  was copy and paste other people's photos of girls in renaissance faire outfits.

I thought I was incredibly clever and important doing this; until other people started doing the same thing with photos from the magazine I wrote for - and I realized that what I was doing was essentially just stealing other people's stuff.

So I get it. People don't like SOPA. But if you really want to end the need for a Stop Online Piracy Act, it will take more than blacking out Google and Facebook for a day. You need to start here:

• Don't illegally download music
• Don't illegally download movies
• Don't illegally download software
• Don't copy your software DVDs and give them to your friends
• Don't copy and paste photos from other people's websites and post them on your own
• Don't copy and paste newspaper articles or blogs and post them without attribution

Essentially, it all boils down to this: If you don't want the movie studios, the record companies and the software execs to force restrictive legislation down your throats - don't steal their stuff.

We are as much to blame for the existence of SOPA and other anti-piracy bills as they are. It's about time we took ownership of that and adjusted our behavior in response.

Only Ron Paul can win the election for the Republicans

by Roland Hulme

The Republicans will lose the 2012 Presidential Election - unless they nominate Ron Paul.

Love him or hate him, only R. Paul can win.

Winning a presidential election is easy. You just need to win more votes in more states than your opponent.

For the GOP, a roadmap to victory is already in place. All they need to do is identify who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and try to draw those voters towards a Republican candidate.

A swing of just a few percentage points could make all the difference in November.

But despite the simplicity and transparancy of this formula, it seems the Republicans are eager to throw their chances of election victory away in 2012.

In Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, primary season has heated up; and it seems clear that the Republican old guard have already decided who their 2012 candidate will be regardless of what the Republican voters actually say.

They've decided to root for Mitt Romney; and in doing so have lost the election even before it begins.

Mitt Romney cannot stand convincingly against Barack Obama.

He cannot appeal to the grass roots movements like the Tea Party and the Occupy movement because he comes from such a privileged background and is so entrenched in the corrupt system Americans are losing patience with.

He cannot credibly argue for the repeal of the lauded "Obamacare" health care reform because it was modeled on a system he himself introduced while governor of Massachusetts.  

He cannot tout himself as a champion of cutting taxes, when he has a record for raising taxes by $300 million as governor; mostly through slyly redefining fees and tariffs.

Mitt Romney's campaign is dead in the water before it even begins.

The truth be told, every other potential Republican candidate faces the same issue. They might talk tough, but not one of them has the credentials to put together a serious campaign against Barack Obama - with one notable exception.

Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who could beat Barack Obama; and he could do it by a landslide.

Why? Because he's the only candidate who will draw Democratic and Independent voters away from Barack Obama and make them tick the GOP box on election day.

There's proof. Astonishing proof. The fact that Ron Paul placed 2nd in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire; with almost 20% of the vote.

Just in case you missed the significance of that statement, it means Ron Paul came in second place in both the Republican and Democratic primaries in the state.

The GOP elite and the mainstream media have tried every trick in the book to squish news of Ron Paul's powerful support - with CNN even claiming that Jon Huntsman was the "real" 2nd place victor in New Hampshire "once you took Ron Paul out of it."

But the fact is you can't "take Ron Paul out of it." That's not how democracy works.

From a personal perspective, I'm not even sure I'm that much of a fan of Ron Paul and his policies! But I do know that only he has the ammunition to bring 2012 home for the Republicans - and it seems they're terrified of acknowledging that fact.

Look at it this way - if Ron Paul won the Republican primary, most - if not all - Republicans would support him in preference to Barack Obama.

Then, if the New Hampshire democratic primary was even remotely representative of America as a whole (and even with a 75% margin of error in either direction) enough Democrats and Independents would support him to easily bring home victory.

Whether that would be a good thing or not remains to be seen - one of the reasons the Republican old guard are so terrified of Ron Paul is precisely why he's so popular with voters on both sides of the political spectrum - he's a threat to the status quo.

But that's the price victory comes at - which is precisely why the Republicans will do everything they can to ensure Ron Paul doesn't win the GOP primary - even if it costs them the election.

And that's important.

Registered Republicans need to understand that mindset. In years to come, and in future presidential elections, we all need to remember than when Republicans had the means to achieve almost certain victory, they threw it away.

Instead, they'll run mainstream muppet Mitt Romney. They'll run him on a campaign of "vote for Mitt, because he's not Obama." And they'll lose, just like the Democrats did in 2004 when they ran John Kerry under the campaign: "Vote for Kerry, because he's not Bush."

In 2004, I supported the reelection of George W. Bush for precisely that reason - and it's why I'll vote for Barack Obama in 2012 rather than swallow the bitter-tasting poison that the Republican party elite is trying to spoon-feed their core electorate.

"Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time."

Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Media Prep to Derail Ron Paul in Iowa

   by Roland Hulme

The media have begun their campaign to derail Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the GOP's dirty little secret.

If the Republican party has a dirty secret, it's Ron Paul.

The fiercely-principled Libertarian lawmaker has been running for President for over a decade now - backed by an incredibly loyal following, a meaty campaign budget and a set of political principles that have remained unwavering over thirty years.

The Republican party establishment are terrified of him; because his message challenges every hypocrisy they have.

Ron Paul doesn't just talk about balancing the budget - he puts forth painful spending plans to actually do it. He doesn't just hide behind the Constitution; he upholds it with such fearsome diligence that it makes social conservatives nervous. Ron Paul is beholden to no-one - not big business, not the lobbyists - not even the media.

Which is why the Republican party continue, at every turn, to try and brush his campaign under the carpet.

Some examples of this are difficult to ignore.

Why else, do you think, that Fox News and the mainstream media announced that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were 2012's presidential "frontrunners" when Ron Paul had beaten at least three of them in the polls?

Why else would Herman Cain get six minutes of airtime during a presidential debate, when Ron Paul was given less than two? They are simply terrified of the public waking up and listening to what Ron Paul is saying - especially in this taut political climate.

But in 2012, they might have finally run out of options. As the Republican party gears up for the first GOP caucus in Iowa, polls are putting Ron Paul neatly at #1. Buoyed by the bipartisan support of young voters, and back by almost 75% of the military, Ron Paul's campaign finally looks like it's going to hit the headlines in a manner in which the Republican party establishment will no longer be able to ignore.

Which is why plans are underway.

Plans like this news story - Iowa GOP worried by hacker threat to caucus vote. Aware that there's a very real possibility that Ron Paul will carry the Iowa caucus, there are suspiciously timely news stories circulating that the results of the vote will be 'tampered' with - placing suspicion on whoever comes in first (and neatly allowing the media and the GOP to disavow a Paul victory as the result of his loyal 'hacktavists.')

It's their back-up plan in case Ron Paul takes Iowa - which polls suggest he might do. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen.

Remember in 2008 that Hilary Clinton was meant to be a shoe-in for the Democratic presidential candidate, but a surprise victory in Iowa put the relatively unknown Barack Obama into the public eye - and subsequently into the White House.

If Ron Paul catches a similar break during the GOP caucus, could the same thing happen again?

A Reality Check for Occupy Wall Street

  by Roland Hulme

OWS need to realize that their "enemy" and their "solution" arethe same entity

An Open Letter from a Rational American.

Dear Occupy Wall Street,

I, like millions of Americans, are torn between support for what you're trying to achieve, in your ramshackle camps in Zucotti Park and elsewhere across the United States, and contempt for both your ideology and your methods.

We can all agree that the current system of "American capitalism" is all screwed up; but your ideas towards fixing it (and your squalid camp outs -filled with rapes, shootings and crime) are totally lopsided.

So here's the skinny, from somebody who is not blindsided by political allegiance or partisan dogma. Here's where you're going wrong; and here's where you're going absolutely right.

First off, your primary concern that corporate America has too much influence in American politics is half right. Almost every single problem that we are enduring - from nearly 20% real unemployment, to the 2008 housing crisis and beyond - can be laid at the doorstop of American politicians working in conspiracy with American business.

But here's when you're wrong - asking government to fix it.

Because this is the kicker you Occupy folks haven't seemed to get your head around yet: Corporations interfering with the government is not the problem. It's the government interfering with corporations that caused this mess. Every time you wave a placard proclaiming that "capitalism is the enemy" you seem to be unaware of the fact that the system we live in - even in America, the most capitalist society on earth - is very far from true capitalism.

We live in a society of crony capitalism; in which instead of competing on the open market, businesses one-up their rivals through the work of lobbyists and legislation.

The evidence is everywhere.

You Occupy types would like to blame the 2008 housing market collapse on the banks; but that's simply not true. 80% of all mortgages in this country are backed by Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae; which are essentially government bodies even if the paperwork claims they're not. The housing crisis was caused by lawmakers passing regulations to force banks into lending money to bad risk investments; investments which later failed to pay up and sank the industry.

The reason nobody can get a loan today is not because banks don't have any money (they do - they're sitting on trillions of dollars) but because they're looking at these potential loans as business investments; not required action by the government (for which lobbyists and lawmakers enjoyed a commission kickback.)

This abuse goes still further.

Just look at how Governor Rick Perry 'mandated' vaccinations for teenage girls not because he believed HPV was a potential risk for them growing up, but because he was getting kickbacks from the only company that produced the vaccine.

When I worked for SIRIUS Satellite Radio, our merger with XM was nearly nobbled by lobbyists from the terrestrial radio business; who used their influence to drag a "yay or nay" out interminably not for the benefit of the radio consumer - but to try and force both companies into bankruptcy before they could consolidate.

A similar example occurred recently, when wireless companies AT&T and T-Mobile were refused permission to merger. Was this to prevent them from creating a "monopoly"? Very far from it - even as a single company, they'd still face fierce competition from Verizon and Sprint.

No, the truth was that lobbyists from these rival companies pressured lawmakers to deny the merger because they knew that a combined AT&T and T-Mobile would present more serious competition; and so instead of beating them on the open market, they hammered the nail into their coffin in the back rooms of Washington instead.

Now reading this, you might think that I'm validating everything the Occupy Wall Street crowd is going on about; that business should get out of government.

But I believe very strongly that it's the other way around.

When it comes to issues like wireless companies combining, or whether or not the impoverished should be trusted to manage variable rate mortgages, you have to ask yourself whether this is the business of government at all.

Deciding whether I have commercials or not during my radio listening was certainly not amongst the roles and responsibilities set out for government by the Founding Fathers.

The simple fact is; capitalism is the greatest and fairest system of economy in the world, and we have traditionally done 'capitalism' best in America - but we're screwing it royally up.

And the problem isn't that business is intruding into government - although it is, inexcusably.

It's that government has maneuvered itself into areas which were traditionally dictated only by the forces of the free market; and that has enabled unscrupulous businessmen to gain the upper hand over rival business not by offering better services, or cheaper rates, or any of the other things that cause one company to win out over the other, but by bribing the elected officials who are unfairly in control of such things.

Yes, Occupy Wall Street, it's true that American business today has the country in a stranglehold - but don't blame capitalism. True capitalism - unfettered by corruption, graft, greed, bribery and vice - could never have led us here without the knowing compliance of the corrupt, crooked, unscrupulous bastards who we unwittingly elected into power to "protect us."

Government poisons business; not the other way around.

Sincerely,

Roland Hulme

Did "Think and Grow Rich" Predict the Future?

  by Roland Hulme

 
Napoleon Hill Proves It's Deja Vu All Over Again

The best self-improvement book ever written

One of the most remarkable books of the 20th century – and required reading for anybody who wants to make something of their lives – is Napoleon Hill's seminal work Think and Grow Rich.

Published in 1937, at the tail end of the great depression, it was the result of 25 years research – interviewing hundreds of millionaires to determine which specific, practical steps led to their wealth and prosperity.

The truly astonishing thing about reading this book in 2011 is just how applicable almost everything within the pages remains.

I always consider the line "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" to be a tired old trope – but in this case, it proves the line's validity.

If Napoleon Hill were alive today, he might be bemused by our smartphones, our GPS and our Twitter – but just about everything else in our society he would recognize as an unflattering profile from his own time; and he'd be unimpressed at our lack of progress.

Take Chapter 7, in which Hill debates the meaning of leadership. He writes, from the filter of his 1937 perspective, that "your attention is called to a few of the fertile fields in which there has been a decline of leadership, and in which the new type of leader may find an abundance of opportunity." He expected that void of leadership to be filled. It hasn't been.

"In the field of politics there is a most insistent demand for new leaders; a demand which indicates nothing less than an emergency. The majority of politicians have, seemingly, become high-grade, legalized racketeers. They have increased taxes and debauched the machinery of industry and business until the people can no longer stand the burden."

Good LORD. Is that not equally applicable to our crisis today? One which has spurred movements like the Tea Party, and our national dissatisfaction with the partisan politics and pork barrel farming of Washington?

"The banking business is undergoing a reform. The leaders in this field have almost entirely lost the confidence of the public. Already the bankers have sensed the need of reform, and they have begun it."

Hill wrote those words in 1937 – yet they are as applicable today as they have ever been. Occupy Wall Street is today picketing in the streets because of a lack of leadership Hill recognized seven decades ago.

"New leaders will be required in the field of Journalism. Newspapers of the future, to be conducted successfully, must be divorced from “special privilege” and cease to be organs of propaganda for the interests which patronize their advertising columns. The type of newspaper which publishes scandal and lewd pictures will eventually go the way of all forces which debauch the human mind."

Although Hill's puritanical streak reveals itself in his statement, what he identifies remains a problem today – as the phone hacking scandal in the British press reveals.

The silver lining of comparing Napoleon Hill's opinions of then with our situation now is that is suggests the areas of leadership and opportunity of which he spoke remain open; waiting for the right people to fill them. Perhaps those of us who are trying to "think and grow rich" would be wise to consider how best they could take advantage of those opportunities…

Occupy Wall Street Finally Has A Face - and he's a douchebag

   by Roland Hulme

Will "the face" of Occupy Wall Street be the end of it?

The media is poised to make this thug the "face" of OWS

"Since the Occupy Wall Street movement began," writes Dylan Stableford of The Cutline, "protesters, armed with their intentionally vague demands, have lacked a defining moment or iconic image to help propel media coverage. This week, they got both."

He's referring the iconic photograph of 20-year-old protestor Brandon Watt,s with his face bloodied from a clash with the police.

"Protester Brandon Watts, who was first to pitch a tent at Zuccotti Park, is now the bloody face of 'Day of Action" writes The Daily News. "Brandon has long carried the reputation of being a fighter — but got a major lesson in love, too."

While I'm happy that the press and supporters feel they've finally found OWS' Che Guevara, an objective examination of this young man's past isn't exactly flattering for him, or for the Occupy Wall Street movement as a whole.

"Brandon has been arrested four times since Sept. 24 for resisting arrest, loitering in disguise, escaping from a prisoner van and stealing orange mesh fencing," report The Daily News. "Soon after protesters started pitching tents, a gal pal of Watts’ told the New York Times Magazine he also lost his virginity at the encampment."

Similarly unimpressive are the circumstances surrounding how Brandon came to be bruised and bloodied in that famous photograph. Unlike other iconic figures from recent protests across the world - in Iran, Egypt, Libya and beyond - it's fair to argue that the kid brought his injuries upon himself.

"On Thursday, Watts stood atop a wall inside Zuccotti Park and tossed objects at cops standing outside the barricade along Liberty Street,"writes The Daily News. "Suddenly, he charged the officers and snatched a hat off the head of a deputy inspector. Cops caught him, but he began to fight back, busting his head on the concrete, causing a gash to gush blood down his face."

The fact is, if you assault an officer of the law - pelting him with objects, then snatching at his hat - you might actually deserve whatever punishment you receive as a result. The whole point of alleged "police brutality" is that it's undeserved. Personally, I think Brandon bought and paid for every bruise they gave him.

But more telling than the circumstances around Brandon's bloodied arrest are the circumstances surrounding him in general; and what his passion infers about the Occupy Wall Street movement as a whole.

OWS has been quick to distance themselves from the characters who've brought controversy to their movement - the rapists, the murders and the guy who took potshots at the President. But they can't shed an association with Brandon Watts so easily.

“He’s been here since week one,” a protestor told The Daily News. “He was one of the guys who started the whole tent thing.”

Brandon Watts is Occupy Wall Street - and he's no Che Guevara. He's actually just a feckless, 20-year old with a history of violence and disrespect for authority. He came to Wall Street from Philly not to protest America's indenture to corporations, but to brawl with the police and have sex in squalid tents.

He's the reason the authorities are cracking down on Occupy camps across America. He's the reason the American public are increasingly losing patience with the protestors. He's the reason OWS lacks the credibility the Tea Party has generated (and believe me, I'm the last person who ever thought they're use the words "Tea Party" and "credibility" in the same sentence.)

And if the media does adopt this unsavory troublemaker as the "face" of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it will spell an end to the protest's already crumbling credibility.