Apple iMac makeover appears ripe for summer, says firm

[AppleInsider]

There's an 80 percent likelihood that Mac maker Apple Inc. will set aside a day this summer to introduce a complete redesign to its signature iMac desktop line, analysts for Piper Jaffray investment research said this week.

Billing the rumored iMac makeover its "Hot Topic of the Month," the firm cited a lack of recent updates to the all-on-one systems as well as recent AppleInsider reports in saying there is a an 80 percent chance redesigned models will arrive sometime in the coming months.

"Based on Apple's product roadmap and the fact that the iMac has not been updated in 309 days, we [...] continue to expect redesigned iMacs this summer," analyst Gene Munster wrote in a research report.

In addition to new iMacs, the analyst also referenced reports that Apple is developing a 13-inch MacBook Pro model featuring an ultra-portable, lightweight enclosure. Such a development, he said, could form a possible inroad for Apple in Asia, where Mac sales have lagged global averages.

The PiperJaffray analyst also used his report Thursday to reiterate his belief that Apple is working on Mac OS X-based iPods with similar touchscreen features to the iPhone.

"While Apple has been criticized for diversifying its product lineup, we believe Apple is focusing its offerings on the OSX software, which is used in Macs, Apple TVs, iPhones, and soon, iPods," he told clients.

Munster, who has also been tracking the availability of iPhones at Apple retail stores since launch day, said supply appears somewhat constrained but is improving daily.

"Apple's supply met demand through the first weekend, but in less than 1 week, by the 5th of July, only 1 percent of Apple's 165 US retail stores had iPhones available," he wrote. "Stores have been receiving regular shipments of iPhones, and as of July 10 availability levels have stabilized around 50 percent.

Munster maintains an Outperform rating on shares of the Cupertino-based Apple with a price target of $160.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[SpinDrift]

Wow, another one!

[icibaqu]

now officially citing rumor sites! nice echo chamber effect.

[solipsism]

"The PiperJaffray analyst also used his report Thursday to reiterate his belief that Apple is working on Mac OS X-based iPods with similar touchscreen features to the iPhone. "

Where can I get a job repeating what Steve Jobs himself stated?


PS? When these analysts release a target price, what kind of time frame are they refering to?

[Marvin]

What do these analysts get paid for? Looking at rumor sites and then making up even more vague predictions?

"this summer"
"sometime in the coming months"

At least ThinkSecret mentioned August. Here's what I think of you PiperJaffrey:

[Charko]

The so-called 'analysts for Piper Jaffray' are playing their usual play-it-safe game, so whatever happens they can always cover themselves.

I mean it's pathetic! Of course there's an 80% chance of a new iMac coming this summer - at least 80%!

And what does a target price of $160 for AAPL tell us when the price is already over $130 and everything is lookin up for Apple?

How do these people justify their exsistence? Not to mention their inflated salaries!

[sworthy]

Originally Posted by solipsism

PS? When these analysts release a target price, what kind of time frame are they refering to?

They are refering to a 12-month time frame. Although, they revise it so often it hardly matters!

[Ireland]

I love the way these analysts try to claim it's their idea. He even thinks the ultra-portable is going to be 13", it's not. I know he reads AI, MR and TS, but he should read them twice.

[Charko]

solipsism,

right!

That's something that's always annoyed me.

A 'target price' without any sort of time reference is totally irrelevant!

[SpamSandwich]

Munster's Boss: "Gene, we've had no solid news from the Apple camp for months. Give me something I can sell to these suckers... I mean, our clients, by tomorrow!"

Munster: "Uh... I got nuthin'... Oh, wait a second." (Lightbulb goes off over head)

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by Charko

The so-called 'analysts for Piper Jaffray' are playing their usual play-it-safe game, so whatever happens they can always cover themselves.

I mean it's pathetic! Of course there's an 80% chance of a new iMac coming this summer - at least 80%!

And what does a target price of $160 for AAPL tell us when the price is already over $130 and everything is lookin up for Apple?

How do these people justify their exsistence? Not to mention their inflated salaries!

Why should you care? They work on commission. If they goof, their clients move elsewhere, that is they don't loose all their investments.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Why should you care? They work on commission. If they goof, their clients move elsewhere, that is they don't loose all their investments.

No, they don't work on commission. They aren't brokers. They aren't selling stocks, or any other securities. They get paid for their analysis.

[gordy]

And that analysis doesn't have to be proven true or false...just supported.

[polar315]

There is a truthiness in all that these journalists/analysts say. I would say these reports are not rumors but, are infotainment. Imagine AI, MR, or TS going a single business day without an update of some kind. My greatest fear is what will the analtainmentysts be able to report on with the new imacs, leopard , and ipods released by Dec...

It has been 30 days and counting since the imac platform has been updated....When will jobs address this problem !!!

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by melgross

No, they don't work on commission. They aren't brokers. They aren't selling stocks, or any other securities. They get paid for their analysis.

You are right. I should have said they get paid from the revenues generated by the brokers. In effect, bad analysis causes bad client relationships. Enough of them and you are out.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

In addition to new iMacs, the analyst also referenced reports that Apple is developing a 13-inch MacBook Pro model featuring an ultra-portable, lightweight enclosure.

First of all, HAVE I NOT CALLED THIS 13" MBP RUMOR FOR OVER A MONTH NOW?!?! ...and no one listens.

Anyway, this will NOT be an Ultra-Portable. At best, it'll be slightly more portable than a MacBook.

Following a 13" MBP, Apple will either release a smaller MacBook or tablet that can be considered as an ultra-portable... but Apple will never market it that way. They' simple call it MacBook Mini or the iSlate or whatever it happens to be. Apple doesn't succumb to the limitations of conventional terminology when developing their products.

-Clive

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

You are right. I should have said they get paid from the revenues generated by the brokers. In effect, bad analysis causes bad client relationships. Enough of them and you are out.

They don't get paid in a way that would influence their reports that way. Most of their income is generated by investment houses, and companies in the industry, who are interested in what their competitors are planning. Brokerage houses are a small part of their client list.

The problems we had in the '90's, with banking houses owning the research arms, which were then sometimes perverted into becoming an arm of their banking business has disappeared, with most all of these research companies not being owned by brokerage and banking houses.

when they are, they must say so. As the client lists of the investment houses, and banks are public (for the most part), when research units are owned, it's easy, if you want to, to find if the research is benefiting the client list.

While it may appear that way upon occasion, if a company is doing well, and the analyst praises it, it's the trend that must be observed.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by melgross

They don't get paid in a way that would influence their reports that way. Most of their income is generated by investment houses, and companies in the industry, who are interested in what their competitors are planning. Brokerage houses are a small part of their client list.

The problems we had in the '90's, with banking houses owning the research arms, which were then sometimes perverted into becoming an arm of their banking business has disappeared, with most all of these research companies not being owned by brokerage and banking houses.

when they are, they must say so. As the client lists of the investment houses, and banks are public (for the most part), when research units are owned, it's easy, if you want to, to find if the research is benefiting the client list.

While it may appear that way upon occasion, if a company is doing well, and the analyst praises it, it's the trend that must be observed.

Munster is a Sr. Investment Analyst employee of Piper Jaffray & Co. (NYSE: PJC), often shortened to just Piper Jaffray or PiperJaffray, is a U.S. middle-market investment banking and institutional securities firm focused on delivering financial advice, investment products and transaction execution within targeted sectors of the financial services marketplace. Through its principal subsidiary, Piper Jaffray & Co., the Company serves corporations, government and non-profit entities, institutional investors and the financial advisory needs of private individuals.

[Arantxa]

Is anyone else sick of this yet? The rumours are driving me crazy. I'm not getting a mac 'till leopard is out, and then I'll still wait for an iMac redesign... Why, cruel world? Why tease me with hopes of really cool technology appearing this summer?

[murphyweb]

"Based on Apple's product roadmap and the fact that the iMac has not been updated in 309 days, we [...] continue to expect redesigned iMacs this summer," analyst Gene Munster wrote in a research report.

Amazing!

In a another research paper a senior analyst a Perdy, Berdy and Nerdy Research Inc also concluded that based on the 12 ounce Steak with creamed potato i had for dinner last night along with the bowl of cereal and fruit i ate this morning there is an 80% chance that i will have a bowel movement sometime today.

[murphyweb]

On a slightly more serious note

There's an 80 percent likelihood that Mac maker Apple Inc. will set aside a day this summer

If anyone from Piper Jaffray investment research is looking at these comments you would probably do well to realise that when writing papers intended for a global market (i assume you are, not all Apple investors are in the US) that the Southern Hemisphere does not share seasons with the Northern Hemisphere. Down below the equator it is actually the middle of winter now and hight of summer will not hit until December.

It might sound a bit picky but in a global economy it is probably useful to understand, using months or quarters is probably the most appropriate method. I understand that it is much easier to be vague when you just say 'summer' as even if the imac is delayed until September you can still claim a win, but saying the next 3 months or so will serve the same purpose.

[onlooker]

Members of AI should get paid as an informants. We do all this guys research, and he reiterates it to stockholders. They should give me a fuxing job!

[bobmarksdale]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Billing the rumored iMac makeover its "Hot Topic of the Month," the firm cited a lack of recent updates to the all-on-one systems as well as recent AppleInsider reports in saying there is a an 80 percent chance redesigned models will arrive sometime in the coming months.

Wow. Just wow. Of course it's going to happen sometime in the coming months. Any single person on these forums could have told us that. What we want to know is what week, what day, and possibly what exact time.

In other news, there is an 80% chance that Apple will update its popular Macbook Pro line within the next 4 years. Analyst Bill Smith gives us this data based on recent market trends with such factors included like common sense and not being a complete moron. Also, B.S. says that the next-gen laptops targeted at professionals from the Cupertino based mac maker (NASDAQ: AAPL) will involve processor, HDD, and GPU upgrades among others and possibly a case redesign.

[debenm]

I really hope that these rumors are true and not merely contrived. I've been waiting for 8 months to get a new iMac ~ I really miss my 20" screen real estate and very much want a 24" (or better).

...Steve will probably not give us swell new imacs till Leopard ~ and that probably won't come till Halloween ~ Trick or Treat special!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Munster is a Sr. Investment Analyst employee of Piper Jaffray & Co. (NYSE: PJC), often shortened to just Piper Jaffray or PiperJaffray, is a U.S. middle-market investment banking and institutional securities firm focused on delivering financial advice, investment products and transaction execution within targeted sectors of the financial services marketplace. Through its principal subsidiary, Piper Jaffray & Co., the Company serves corporations, government and non-profit entities, institutional investors and the financial advisory needs of private individuals.

Yes, re-read what I said.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by murphyweb

Amazing!

In a another research paper a senior analyst a Perdy, Berdy and Nerdy Research Inc also concluded that based on the 12 ounce Steak with creamed potato i had for dinner last night along with the bowl of cereal and fruit i ate this morning there is an 80% chance that i will have a bowel movement sometime today.

But the same people here who laugh at this, were predicting that there would be a reseion soon when the time reached 90 days, then 120 days, then 180 days, etc.

Yet, they always claim to be correct.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by murphyweb

If anyone from Piper Jaffray investment research is looking at these comments you would probably do well to realise that when writing papers intended for a global market (i assume you are, not all Apple investors are in the US)…

I apologize if I am misunderstanding your position here, but Piper Jaffray is an investment bank with a research department that issues reports to support their buy/sell recommendations to their clients only. Obviously other investment firms keep track of their competitors' recommendations and use them in part to help develop their own reports. The media in turn picks them up and uses them for 'news', etc.

[deckard]

Apple's supply met demand?

When has Apple's supply EVER met demand outside of the US home market? This issue is really starting to irk me - I'm in Australia (yes, I understand that Australia is a LONG way from the rest of the world, yes I understand that Australia is a small, in terms of total potential, market) and we are having to wait weeks and weeks for something as simple as a 15" Mac Book Pro!

I mean, honestly! Weeks and weeks for a laptop? I don't think so.

As for the iPhone, we'll wait almost a year - and that I can understand since it requires partnering with Aussie Telcos - who are notoriously difficult to deal with at the best of times.

But a laptop? Come on Apple - extract the digit and consider markets OUTSIDE the US will ya?

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by melgross

Yes, re-read what I said.

I got the impression that you think that Munster is a independent and that his analysis is in no way reflects on how he is remunerated.

If so, from Wikipedia: The research department sometimes doesn't have the ability to bring in enough money to be a self-sustaining research company.

The research analysts department is therefore sometimes a unit of an investment, investment brokerage, or investment advisory firm. (As is Piper Jaffray)

Since 2002 there has been extra effort to overcome perceived conflicts of interest between the investment part of the firm and the public and client research part of the firm (see accounting scandals). For example, research firms are sometimes separated into two categories, "brokerage" and "independent"; the independent researchers are not part of an investment firm and don't have the same incentive to issue overly favorable views on companies. (Unlike Munster who is an employee of Piper Jaffray)

But that might not be sufficient to avoid all conflicts of interest. The debate is still about the way sell-side analysts are paid. Usually brokerage fees pay for their research. But this creates a temptation for analysts to act as stock sellers and to lure investors into "overtrading"."

Some consider that it would be sounder if investors had to pay financial research separately and directly to fully independent research firms.


From a recent (07/11/07) Piper Jaffray research report on Apple (http://pjc.bluematrix.com/bluematrix...re?ticker=AAPL)

"Piper Jaffray was making a market in the securities of Apple, Inc. at the time this research report was published. Piper Jaffray will buy and sell Apple, Inc. securities on a principal basis.

"Piper Jaffray research analysts receive compensation that is based, in part, on overall firm revenues, which include investment banking revenues."

[Karelia]

Originally Posted by deckard

Apple's supply met demand?

When has Apple's supply EVER met demand outside of the US home market? This issue is really starting to irk me - I'm in Australia (yes, I understand that Australia is a LONG way from the rest of the world, yes I understand that Australia is a small, in terms of total potential, market) and we are having to wait weeks and weeks for something as simple as a 15" Mac Book Pro!

I mean, honestly! Weeks and weeks for a laptop? I don't think so.

As for the iPhone, we'll wait almost a year - and that I can understand since it requires partnering with Aussie Telcos - who are notoriously difficult to deal with at the best of times.

But a laptop? Come on Apple - extract the digit and consider markets OUTSIDE the US will ya?

15" MBP's are suffering pretty bad backorders everywhere, not just Australia.

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by deckard

Apple's supply met demand? ... When has Apple's supply EVER met demand outside of the US home market? This issue is really starting to irk me - I'm in Australia (yes, I understand that Australia is a LONG way from the rest of the world, yes I understand that Australia is a small, in terms of total potential, market) and we are having to wait weeks and weeks for something as simple as a 15" Mac Book Pro! ...I mean, honestly! Weeks and weeks for a laptop? I don't think so. But a laptop? Come on Apple - extract the digit and consider markets OUTSIDE the US will ya?

I understand, after 5 years in Australiah in the late 90's I decided to go live and work in California itself. That those 5 years were mostly in Brisbane, QLD was not helpful.

That said, as below, MBP 15" are totally assfracked in terms of supply everywhere around the world. I checked yesterday, Singapore and US Apple Stores, for example, online, are showing 7-10 business days. That translates into almost 3 weeks in reality. The MBP 15" 2.2ghz is backordered up the wazoo through to the end of September, I imagine.

Originally Posted by Karelia

15" MBP's are suffering pretty bad backorders everywhere, not just Australia.

Originally Posted by deckard

As for the iPhone, we'll wait almost a year - and that I can understand since it requires partnering with Aussie Telcos - who are notoriously difficult to deal with at the best of times.

If Asia early 2008 gets an iPhone unlocked to some degree, then grey imports into Australia would be a natural move and something the Aussie telcos can't really block. But I really don't know (and am somewhat scared... heh) about what is going to happen. Again, everybody and his/her dog/cat outside the US is asking for the iPhone.

Selling teh Apple is no longer about sales anymore. Heh. ...It is about crowd control.

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by Charko

solipsism, right! That's something that's always annoyed me.
A 'target price' without any sort of time reference is totally irrelevant!

Originally Posted by solipsism

PS? When these analysts release a target price, what kind of time frame are they refering to?

I think the time frame is within the next few minutes, at least that is the target anyway so they can make lots of money.

Originally Posted by solipsism

...Where can I get a job repeating what Steve Jobs himself stated?

An Apple reseller/ Apple Store.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

I got the impression that you think that Munster is a independent and that his analysis is in no way reflects on how he is remunerated.

If so, from Wikipedia: The research department sometimes doesn't have the ability to bring in enough money to be a self-sustaining research company.

The research analysts department is therefore sometimes a unit of an investment, investment brokerage, or investment advisory firm. (As is Piper Jaffray)

Since 2002 there has been extra effort to overcome perceived conflicts of interest between the investment part of the firm and the public and client research part of the firm (see accounting scandals). For example, research firms are sometimes separated into two categories, "brokerage" and "independent"; the independent researchers are not part of an investment firm and don't have the same incentive to issue overly favorable views on companies. (Unlike Munster who is an employee of Piper Jaffray)

But that might not be sufficient to avoid all conflicts of interest. The debate is still about the way sell-side analysts are paid. Usually brokerage fees pay for their research. But this creates a temptation for analysts to act as stock sellers and to lure investors into "overtrading"."

Some consider that it would be sounder if investors had to pay financial research separately and directly to fully independent research firms.


From a recent (07/11/07) Piper Jaffray research report on Apple (http://pjc.bluematrix.com/bluematrix...re?ticker=AAPL)

"Piper Jaffray was making a market in the securities of Apple, Inc. at the time this research report was published. Piper Jaffray will buy and sell Apple, Inc. securities on a principal basis.

"Piper Jaffray research analysts receive compensation that is based, in part, on overall firm revenues, which include investment banking revenues."

Please don't use that as an explanation. It's useless. The research departments in investment and banking houses, the few that are left, are now restricted by law. It's not the free for all it was starting in the '90's when investment houses, which were the ones with the research arms (other than the independent one), were bought up by the banking industry after the laws constraining that were loosened up. The internet boom caused many unethical things to occur.

While I would never accept that things are now perfect, the serious lapses have been, for the most part, curbed. Insider trading, and information sharing are now brought to court when found. Research arms of banks are now required to have a "Chinese" wall between them and the banks sales force, unlike in the past.

They also, as I mentioned, must tell of their affiliations, which they didn't have to do before.

Also, unlike the banking analysts of the '90's, these analysts, and the companies they work for are now money making divisions themselves, unlike the free services they were before.

Of course, any company which has various divisions, can be suspect, IF it can be shown that it's analysis is biased, and therefore wrong, on a consistent basis. You have to prove that. You also have to prove that the salary of analysts in the research division gain or lose from the profits of the banking division in a way that would reflect upon their own work.

They are very unlikely to deceive their customers, whose fees and subscriptions they now depend upon to stay in business.

Piper has a good record. If anything, over the years, I have found them to be somewhat conservative regarding Apple.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by melgross

Please don't use that as an explanation. It's useless. The research departments in investment and banking houses, the few that are left, are now restricted by law.

What law are you referring to?

If you go to the Piper Jaffray site (as linked) and look at their analyst reports they include a disclosure which by law is all that is minimally required.

[Duddits]

Originally Posted by deckard

I'm in Australia (yes, I understand that Australia is a LONG way from the rest of the world, yes I understand that Australia is a small, in terms of total potential, market) and we are having to wait weeks and weeks for something as simple as a 15" Mac Book Pro!

I mean, honestly! Weeks and weeks for a laptop? I don't think so.

As for the iPhone, we'll wait almost a year

That is the price you have to pay for beautiful beaches and friendly people.

[Duddits]

Originally Posted by murphyweb

If anyone from Piper Jaffray investment research is looking at these comments you would probably do well to realise that when writing papers intended for a global market (i assume you are, not all Apple investors are in the US) that the Southern Hemisphere does not share seasons with the Northern Hemisphere. Down below the equator it is actually the middle of winter now and hight of summer will not hit until December.

It might sound a bit picky but in a global economy it is probably useful to understand, using months or quarters is probably the most appropriate method. I understand that it is much easier to be vague when you just say 'summer' as even if the imac is delayed until September you can still claim a win, but saying the next 3 months or so will serve the same purpose.

Sorry Murphyweb. Current SEC regulations require predictions issued from Investment institutions and research units therein be standardized around seasonal divisions (and particularly fabulous cocktail parties) originiating from the Hamptons.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

What law are you referring to?

If you go to the Piper Jaffray site (as linked) and look at their analyst reports they include a disclosure which by law is all that is minimally required.

Your assertion is incorrect.

I'll give you the Google search page for this. There is simply too much to read through.

Be aware that SEC rules carry the force of law.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by melgross

Your assertion is incorrect.

I'll give you the Google search page for this. There is simply too much to read through.

Be aware that SEC rules carry the force of law.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

What law are you referring to?

If you go to the Piper Jaffray site (as linked) and look at their analyst reports they include a disclosure which by law is all that is minimally required.

By the way, here is the law:

Regulation AC requires broker-dealers and their associated persons that are “covered persons” that publish, circulate or provide a research report to a U.S. person in the United States to include a certification by the research analyst primarily responsible for the content of the report. The certification by the research analyst must (i) attest that the views expressed in the report accurately reflect the analyst’s personal views about the subject securities or issuers, and (ii) disclose whether or not the analyst’s compensation was, is, or will be tied to the specific recommendations or views expressed in the report. If the analyst’s compensation is tied to the recommendation or views expressed, the analyst must further disclose the source and amount of such compensation, the purpose of the compensation, and that the compensation may influence the recommendation in the research report. The adopting release clarifies that the compensation disclosure requirement is intended to focus only on compensation related to a specific recommendation or view. The SEC has stated that disclosure is not required for compensation derived from the performance of a recommendation or for the performance of general duties in preparing the report. The certifications must be “clear and prominent,” meaning that the front page of the report must either contain the certification or the page numbers where the certifications can be found.

In addition as posted on the Piper Jaffray site, "2 Analysts may qualify for a discretionary bonus. The level of their bonus is determined by Research Management and the Investment Research Budget and Compensation Committee. That determination is based on a broad range of internal and external benchmarks, and a variety of other factors, including the overall profitability and revenue of Piper Jaffray and the competitive environment. Analysts’ compensation may not be based directly or indirectly on specific investment banking revenues. (as mandated by law)"

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

What law are you referring to?

If you go to the Piper Jaffray site (as linked) and look at their analyst reports they include a disclosure which by law is all that is minimally required.

By the way, here is the law:

Regulation AC requires broker-dealers and their associated persons that are “covered persons” that publish, circulate or provide a research report to a U.S. person in the United States to include a certification by the research analyst primarily responsible for the content of the report. The certification by the research analyst must (i) attest that the views expressed in the report accurately reflect the analyst’s personal views about the subject securities or issuers, and (ii) disclose whether or not the analyst’s compensation was, is, or will be tied to the specific recommendations or views expressed in the report. If the analyst’s compensation is tied to the recommendation or views expressed, the analyst must further disclose the source and amount of such compensation, the purpose of the compensation, and that the compensation may influence the recommendation in the research report. The adopting release clarifies that the compensation disclosure requirement is intended to focus only on compensation related to a specific recommendation or view. The SEC has stated that disclosure is not required for compensation derived from the performance of a recommendation or for the performance of general duties in preparing the report. The certifications must be “clear and prominent,” meaning that the front page of the report must either contain the certification or the page numbers where the certifications can be found.

In addition as posted on the Piper Jaffray site, "2 Analysts may qualify for a discretionary bonus. The level of their bonus is determined by Research Management and the Investment Research Budget and Compensation Committee. That determination is based on a broad range of internal and external benchmarks, and a variety of other factors, including the overall profitability and revenue of Piper Jaffray and the competitive environment. Analysts’ compensation may not be based directly or indirectly on specific investment banking revenues. (as mandated by law)"

I posted the entire Google page which contains all of the atricles, about this, including the SEC specs. Perhaps if you go to several of those pages and read what is said, and what has been done, we can end this moving in circles.

Thank you.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by melgross

I posted the entire Google page which contains all of the atricles, about this, including the SEC specs. Perhaps if you go to several of those pages and read what is said, and what has been done, we can end this moving in circles.

Thank you.

My quotes as referenced are taken from the SEC FInal Rules on Regulation Analyst Certification as put into law, i.e., On February 20, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted Regulation Analyst Certification (“Regulation AC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
“Exchange Act”). See SEC Release No. 33-8193 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8193.htm).

Are you calling me a liar?