Members' Team Claimed ASD Purchases FDIC-Insured
Monday, September 29, 2008
Two days ago we wrote about some of the reasons why federal prosecutors and the U.S. Secret Service acted appropriately in bringing the forfeiture case against Ad Surf Daily Inc.
Today we'll write about another one: out-of-control participants, including participants who made the outrageous claim money directed at ASD was "FDIC Insured up to $100,000."
Yes, you read that correctly. (See screen shot below.)
The FDIC, which has been in the news a lot recently because of 14 U.S. bank failures this year, does not insure ASD purchases against failure by the company. ASD is not a bank.
This plain fact, however, was not enough to dissuade an ASD downline team from making the outrageous claim purchases were insured by the FDIC.
Question: If you're capable of claiming ASD purchases are FDIC-insured and deceiving and misleading people to this extent, what wouldn't you do? We mean, What would be off-limits if you're capable of making this claim?
Due Diligence?
All of the talk about people performing financial "due diligence" on AdSurfDaily before getting involved in the program or recommending appears to be so much hyperbolic hooey.
How is any financial due diligence even possible without verifiable financial data from ASD?
Absent verifiable data, what is possible, of course, is to create the appearance of financial legitimacy by using the language of investments and banking and hyping the program to recruit people.
Yesterday we noted some incongruities about ASD, parts of the picture that do not make sense. One of the key government assertions is that ASD is a securities firm masked as an advertising business -- something that ASD itself denies.
But despite ASD's denial, some of ASD's own members promoted ASD using the language of investments and banking and making preposterous claims, including the outrageous claim that program purchases were FDIC-insured.
Early ASD team ad claiming completed "Due Diligence"; "Extremely Well Capitalized"; "Top Management"; "shelter from FTC and SEC"; "LEGENDARY Parent Company"; "NEW Innovative Business Model"; "FDIC Insured Up To $100,000"; and more.The screen shot above -- a five-alarm fire if ever there was one -- is from an ad by an early ASD members "team." Only recently was the information taken offline, and a version of it continues to appear on at least two websites. The word "advertising" isn't even mentioned at the top of the ad, the first thing people viewing it would see.
What, precisely, were these members selling if not an investment opportunity? And what, precisely, did the members' "due diligence" consist of?
How, precisely, could the claim that ASD was "extremely well capitalized" be substantiated?
And how about the claim that ASD had "top management?"
ASD Founder and President Andy Bowdoin is a "convicted fraudster" with a string of failed businesses, according to the government.
"Shelter from FTC and SEC" is another claim from the ad. The obvious question is, Shelter from what? What possibly needs to be sheltered when you're making an advertising purchase?
And FDIC insured? Why would anybody make such a preposterous claim for an advertising product?
Along those lines, anybody with an Internet connection can find spreadsheets online in which ASD promoters showed potential earnings, a prospectus of sorts. Members routinely used the language of investing to describe the ASD opportunity.
ASD promoter's "ASD Prospect Sheet," a spreadsheet showing potential earnings.Want more "investment" language? Take a look at the screen shot below of a video that promoted ASD. Note the word "re-invest." Elsewhere on the web there are investment strategies such as the "80-20 Rule": Take out 20 percent in cash and keep 80 percent in play.
Screen shot of YouTube video promoting ASD. Indeed, the ASD case raises some very troubling questions.
Coming Tomorrow On The PP Blog . . .
Tuesday, Sept. 30, during morning hours EDT (U.S.A.), we will publish the principal reason why all U.S. citizens and free people everywhere should say no to the autosurf business model.
This reason consists of only 15 words.
posted by Patrick Pretty @ 4:33 PM,
1 Comments:
-
At September 30, 2008 6:45 PM,
said...
-
Guess I missed the part of this post where you proved that ASD management gave prior approval, had knowledge of or endorsed these independent member's claims, exaggerated or not.
