'Read the classifieds in the Wall Street Journal on Thursdays,' Halter says. 'That's where shells are advertised for sale. The number of ads is definitely greater this year over last year.' Public shells are also offered on the Internet at sites like www.gatewaysg.com.

Advocates say such a 'reverse merger' is a cheap alternative to an IPO. There's no prospectus to print, no road show to orchestrate, and no underwriter to split the proceeds with, Halter explains. But there's also none of the hoopla or credibility that comes with a successful offering. What you do get is a sure deal. Halter says reverse mergers work best for small companies that already have access to capital and still want to be public. 'You have the benefits of being public, like liquidity for investors, stock for acquisitions, access to a source of capital, and a superior valuation,' Halter says. 'All of those things have to do with being public. None of those things have to do with going public.'

If reverse mergers are so great, why doesn't everybody do them? Because some have been a breeding ground for charlatans, according to Bruce Kirchhoff, author of Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism. 'There's no question that it's cheaper to do a backward merger, but you focus too much attention on financial manipulations, and that raises suspicions,' Kirchhoff says. 'If you're a really good company, you should be able to do an IPO.'

One cofounder who took his company public through a reverse merger is John Venners of KFx Inc. a Denver energy company. KFx's deal hit a snag when several long forgotten shareholders from the original shell company resurfaced. The original shareholders immediately sold their shares, and Venner's stock temporarily slumped. 'There are pluses and minuses to doing a reverse merger', he says. 'A downside is being vulnerable to a second agenda that some of the early shareholders might have.'