kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
|  People have no morals
Regardless of the stock price, you made a decision to speculate and invest in a company. Now that your decision has been proved wrong, you're going back on your word? These same people would ave bitched up a storm if Vonage had backed out of giving them the shares if the stock price shot up to $100. What is going on in this country...everyone wants something for free! |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | I could not agree more. These people would have had no problem taking the money if the stock had shot upwards - they just wanted to make money with no risk, effort or brainpower involved.
Sheesh. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | reply to kapil
Well, these are stupid people, so just keep that in mind. And I am sure they will see their day in court. |
|
mettmann
join:2002-07-25
Upland, CA
2 edits | huh?
And - calling people stupid?
Basing all your judgements on one article?
how many is "many" customers?
I was offered the IPO and did not get 100 shares I had requested. There were "some" investors that were allotted zero - and then were shown to have stock, the next day!
Before jumping to conclusions, try to gather more facts...
one source..
»www.vonage-forum.com
(need to register to enter the Stock forum) |
|
Jeffrey
too dark too early
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Dix Hills,NY
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Vonage
·magicjack.com
| reply to kapil
As punishment for reneging on their commitment, Vonage should give them an additional Vonage line in their home.
JUST KIDDING!! (I'm a multi-line'd, very happy Vonage user for 2+ years. No really, see my reviews.)  |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | reply to kapil
Agreed.
It's like playing cards at the casino, and then expecting your money back after you lose.
With investing comes risk. These people got the chance to reap the possible reward without being exposed to any risk. |
|
anonposter
@optonline.net | reply to kapil
EXACTLY..
Everyone that didn't buy and said they would should be banned from trading for life! |
|
Bencoder
@216.135.x.x | reply to joebear29
they just wanted to make money with no risk, effort or brainpower involved.
Yeah, just like some corporations...sheesh, where did they ever learn that mentality? LOL. Throw in the phrase "or competition" and you've got the complete picture. |
|
koam
Pink Pecker
Premium
join:2000-08-16
East Puddle
clubs: | reply to kapil
how long has the CEO been out of jail? |
|
emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
| reply to mettmann
Oh hush.
Notwithstanding errors on the part of the company, if ANYONE did this, they're a weasal, one or 10,000. If they made a commitment to buy, they're stuck. Don't need to read more articles, or even that article for that matter. If someone committed to buy the stock and then refused to pay because it went down, they're a shmuck. Period. No argument, no additional info needed. End of story.
wig |
|
mettmann
join:2002-07-25
Upland, CA
1 edit | Well, I am unclear why there's a jump to judgement, without reviewing other facts or sources of information.
I agree that a Vonage IPO investor should not withhold payment, since they knew the risks of investment.
BUT - what about those that are withholding payment for an allotment that was provided AFTER close of bell (there are instances documented on the www.vonage-forum.com site )- thereby forcing a sale at $17 a share, not market value?
Doesn't the investor hold the right to challenge the zero to X allotment ?
My comments were directed towards:
calling the investors "stupid". (Ignorant may be a better word). Presuming that "all" Vonage investors witholding payment are doing so without lack of cause.
The term "many" - since it presumes the author of the article knew the number of investors with holding or canceling payment.
"Only" 10,000 - implies that there were less people wanting stock - when in reality, there were investors (such as myself) that committed to a 100 stock sale that received nothing - while others that committed to larger amounts receiving a percentage of the allotment.
Jumping to conclusions on the basis of one story - is truly not rational.. |
|
networkengineer
@dreamhost.com
| reply to emptywig
First law of investing: Never follow through with a bad investment. This so called 'Pre-IPO' sale was not a real sale. The 'directed share program' was not a stock sale, it was an offer to buy. BIG difference. period. No Argument, No additional info needed. End of story.
Second law of investing: Unless they have your signature or your money, the investment hasn't happened. Until you SIGN for the mortgage on your house, you can walk away. It doesn't matter what promises you made, until you sign, the deal isn't complete. It's the risk of being in business. period. Most people who sell property have had a sale fall through at the last minute. That's life. Period. No Argument, No additional info needed. End of story.
Third law of investing: Weaseling out of things is what separates people from the animals. Except the weasel, of course. Until the brokerage house gets a signature, a check, or transfers the OWNERSHIP of the stock, there is no deal. The reason this entire vonage thing is a non issue, is that the brokerage house NEVER TRANSFERRED THE STOCK to the investor. The brokerage house will NOT transfer the shares until it gets paid. That is the only fact that matters. Period. No Argument, No additional info needed. End of story.
Fourth law of investing: If you own it, you can sell it. Look at it this way, if the person sold the shares at 17 (short sale), then they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to purchase shares at whatever price the market has, and provide those shares. The reason for the legal obligation is that the seller received payment. If the seller did not receive payment, then the sale did not take place. Period. No Argument, No additional info needed. End of story. |
|
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | reply to kapil
welcome to america, if stocks sinks why should they pay
edit:morals are irrelevant, only thing that matter is the law |
|
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | reply to kapil
double post |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to networkengineer
said by networkengineer :
First law of investing: Never follow through with a bad investment. This so called 'Pre-IPO' sale was not a real sale. The 'directed share program' was not a stock sale, it was an offer to buy. BIG difference. period. No Argument, No additional info needed. End of story.
Second law of investing: Unless they have your signature or your money, the investment hasn't happened. Until you SIGN for the mortgage on your house, you can walk away. It doesn't matter what promises you made, until you sign, the deal isn't complete. It's the risk of being in business. period. Most people who sell property have had a sale fall through at the last minute. That's life. Period. No Argument, No additional info needed. End of story.
Third law of investing: Weaseling out of things is what separates people from the animals. Except the weasel, of course. Until the brokerage house gets a signature, a check, or transfers the OWNERSHIP of the stock, there is no deal. The reason this entire vonage thing is a non issue, is that the brokerage house NEVER TRANSFERRED THE STOCK to the investor. The brokerage house will NOT transfer the shares until it gets paid. That is the only fact that matters. Period. No Argument, No additional info needed. End of story.
Fourth law of investing: If you own it, you can sell it. Look at it this way, if the person sold the shares at 17 (short sale), then they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to purchase shares at whatever price the market has, and provide those shares. The reason for the legal obligation is that the seller received payment. If the seller did not receive payment, then the sale did not take place. Period. No Argument, No additional info needed. End of story.
So if the stock had doubled in price after the IPO, Vonage could have refused to sell it to those who had signed up for it? |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to mettmann
said by mettmann  :huh? And - calling people stupid? Basing all your judgements on one article? how many is "many" customers? I was offered the IPO and did not get 100 shares I had requested. There were "some" investors that were allotted zero - and then were shown to have stock, the next day! Before jumping to conclusions, try to gather more facts... one source.. » www.vonage-forum.com(need to register to enter the Stock forum) I didn't read the article. I came to my conclusion knowing who owns the networks also controls the networks. And Vonage neither owns nor controls the networks. As such, the quality of the service is dependent on someone else. That's a losing game, the IPO should that as a matter of fact, and had those stupid people realized that they would probably a) not had bought the stock, and b) when they did stupidly buy it have concluded the serious consequences for not paying for it.
BTW, 'many' is open to interpretation. If its more than one then 'many' fits the stupid bill.  |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to networkengineer
Real Estate law is different...there are statutory requirements (at least here in California) that agreements be in writing. That is why verbal agreements in real estate aren't binding (at least in California).
Meanwhile not being a Vonage subscriber, how did people acknowledge they wanted the shares? Email? That's in writing. |
|
