 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
|  People have no morals
| |
|  | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | Re: People have no morals 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. | |
| | | 
Bencoder
@216.135.x.x | Re: People have no morals 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. | |
| | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | 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 | Re: People have no morals 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) | |
| | | | emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
| Re: People have no morals 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 | Re: People have no morals 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
| 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. | |
| | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: People have no morals 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? | |
| | | | | | 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| 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. | |
| | | | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| 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.  | |
| | | | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | 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 | EXACTLY..
Everyone that didn't buy and said they would should be banned from trading for life! | |
| | 
koam
Pink Pecker
Premium
join:2000-08-16
East Puddle
clubs: | how long has the CEO been out of jail? | |
| | 
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | welcome to america, if stocks sinks why should they pay
edit:morals are irrelevant, only thing that matter is the law | |
| | | | | 
haroldo
join:2004-01-16
united state
 ·Comcast
| Re: Not surprised stock price dropped after IPO All subscription companies (cable, ISPs, satellite, etc.) make the same claim.
Comcast was public for years before turning a profit.
That shouldn't be an indicator of potential failure...only a convenient excuse for the Monday morning quaterbacks to say "...I told you so..." | |
| | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Not surprised stock price dropped after IPO If you ask me this would be a time to buy. Now that the speculators, dead beats and other suckers are out of the game the stock is low. The first rule of purchasing stock is to buy low and less high. Vonage WILL make a profit in the future. Getting in at the ground floor (especially with the stock depreciating) means a good deal for those who really know how to play the market. | |
| | | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Re: Not surprised stock price dropped after IPO said by SRFireside :If you ask me this would be a time to buy. Now that the speculators, dead beats and other suckers are out of the game the stock is low. The first rule of purchasing stock is to buy low and less high. Vonage WILL make a profit in the future. Getting in at the ground floor (especially with the stock depreciating) means a good deal for those who really know how to play the market. Sucker born every minute. Are you crazy? What part of never make a profit didn't you understand? Vonage got the years confused. They still think it is 1995-1999.
Take a look at their forum. They are some upset folks in there. All of a sudden no one knew that Citron had some issues in his past with the SEC. I'm shocked I tell you.
»www.vonage-forum.com/forum15.html
--
President Hillary Clinton! Are you scared yet?
| |
| | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Not surprised stock price dropped after IPO said by JSRoman :They still think it is 1995-1999. The .com bubble was a very different animal. Much of that was created by venture capitalists investing on concept companies with no actual business model. Vonage at least has a business model. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. If Vonage is in the crapper (or dead) five years from now look me up and give me an "I told ya so". If they are alive by then and their stocks have done well during that time then you'll have to accept a Nelson (from the Simpsons) "Ha Ha!!" from me. 
BTW I'm not an investor. Don't have enough of my own capital to spare for any investments. | |
| | | | | | | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| If you are seriously considering putting money in now I would be very careful. What you say is true if the company has a real future, but sometimes stock drops because the company is simply a dog.
I have never seen how vonage will be a viable business. In my view it is a short term play, capitalizing on the slow movement of the incumbents and will make money for the bigwigs and the investment bankers, but the long term investor will likely get screwed. Voice is going to be a low cost afterthought bundled into broadband service in the future. It will be dominated by the big players, the bells and cablecos. Vonage has had a period where they have been able to maneuver, but I don't see a long term business. | |
| | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
1 edit | said by haroldo :All subscription companies (cable, ISPs, satellite, etc.) make the same claim. Comcast was public for years before turning a profit. That shouldn't be an indicator of potential failure...only a convenient excuse for the Monday morning quaterbacks to say "...I told you so..." Funny I don't remember any Comcast Ceo ever saying , Comcast would never make a profit. These sucker investors got exactly what they deserved. The fell for the hype and now don't want to pay the fiddler. Brokerage companies should go after them and make them payup.
Everybody was saying don't do it and yet they went for the cheese anyway. Vonage is down under $13.00 so far , no profits in sight and once all cable companies fully deploy voip service, Vonage is going feel like the only hooker in Germany during the World Cup.
--
President Hillary Clinton! Are you scared yet?
| |
| | | | | | | | 
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: Not surprised stock price dropped after IPO sounds like it is time to short sell this baby! if you cant make profit on the way up, make a profit on the way down!
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
| | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by TKJunkMail :When the IPO took place and the Vonage CEO had to admit publicly(because of SEC regs) that his company had no prospects of making a profit any time in the foreseeable future, it almost guaranteed the stock would drop in price. But those customers who accepted the IPO price should have to pay for their allotted shares. It looks like Vonage is going to let them off the hook, but they could have forced them to pay up. Some of these people had no business getting involved in an IPO. They are not investors and probably thought they were getting some kind of free ride with a guaranteed profit. After these kind of cable-paid comments floated around and some well-paid articles against Vonage in WSJ, I'm really not surprised the stock went down... | |
| | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Re: Not surprised stock price dropped after IPO The writing was on the wall.
1- VOnage says they might never make a profit
2- Product that is plentiful and not unique.
3- Cable is coming , cable is coming.
4- Questionable Management background- Citron
Add them all up and you get a 25% drop since IPO.
IMO low single digits by end of the year.
--
President Hillary Clinton! Are you scared yet?
| |
| | | | tbeckner
join:2004-03-20
Bend, OR
| Re: Not surprised stock price dropped after IPO said by JSRoman :IMO low single digits by end of the year. IMHO, mid-single digits before the end of Summer. An I am a Vonage customer and have been for two years. | |
| | | | 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Re: Citron is a Crook I think he paid $24 million in that case to avoid jail. | |
| | | amdace
BOHICA
join:2001-02-02
Novi, MI
clubs: | Re: Citron is a Crook 22 million.
He was thieving for at least 5 years. | |
| mettmann
join:2002-07-25
Upland, CA
| Vonage E-Mail Error Could Force Company to Repurchase Shares Vonage E-Mail Error Could Force Company to Repurchase Shares
June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Vonage Holdings Corp. customers who want to back out of last week's initial public offering by the Internet phone company may have a legal basis for doing so.
The Holmdel, New Jersey, company issued a statement yesterday demanding that customers who signed up for the IPO complete their purchases at the initial price of $17 a share. The statement follows a 32 percent decline in Vonage shares since the May 23 offering, the worst stock debut this year. The stock hit a new low of $11.52 today in New York composite trading.
Amid the clamor over whether customers will pay, Vonage has said little about notices that the company sent out prior to the IPO that may have violated federal securities laws. These technical errors, outlined on page 140 of the offering documents one day before the IPO, may give customers the right to force Vonage to buy back their shares, according to Vonage's own documents.
``One thing Vonage has to be considering is whether investors, if they are forced to pay, would have every incentive and motivation to go back over the details of how the IPO was conducted,'' said Donna Nagy, Charles Hartsock Professor of law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. ``If they could show the law was violated, they could put the shares back to the company.''
Mitchell Slepian, a Vonage spokesman, declined to comment. The company first flagged the problem in a May 22 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also said that it would have ``meritorious defenses'' to any claims of defects in the IPO process, adding that the risks relating to potential legal actions ``are not significant.''
Stronger Warning
On May 23 Vonage amended the May 22 filing and strengthened its warning that it may have made technical errors in its IPO. Those errors, it said, may give customers buying shares the right ``to require us to repurchase their shares at the IPO price.''
Vonage sold 31.3 million shares at $17 each on May 23, raising about $531.3 million that the company planned to use in part to market its service. The shares fell 13 percent to $14.85 the next day, the worst debut for an IPO since China's Vimicro International Corp. dropped 16 percent after a November IPO.
The company planned to reserve 13.5 percent of the IPO for its telephone customers, 10,000 of whom committed to the purchase of 4.21 million shares for a total value of $72 million. The company in the May 23 SEC filing said it agreed to compensate the investment banks that underwrote the stock sale if any of these customers decided against purchasing the stock.
Customers May Renege
The filing fueled speculation that Vonage may allow customers to renege on their agreement to buy stock now that the shares are trading for less than $12 each, sparking a flurry of comments on Web logs from some customers. The company sought to end that speculation through the statement released yesterday.
``To be clear, we have not offered and are not offering to repurchase any of the shares of common stock from our customers,'' Vonage said in the statement.
Doug Morris, spokesman at UBS AG, one of the underwriters for the stock sale, declined to comment.
After announcing in early May that it would reserve shares for Vonage customers, the company sent out an e-mail about the program that lacked an active link to a prospectus for the IPO, according to the May 22 SEC filing. The first page of a Website on the customer stock program -- vonageipo.com -- also didn't have a link to the IPO disclosure documents.
`Illegal Offer'
``As a result, it is possible that the e-mail communication and the first page of the website could be determined to be an illegal offer in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act,'' of 1933, Vonage said in the May 23 filing. ``Recipients could seek to recover damages or seek to require us to repurchase their shares at the IPO price.''
Securities rules bar companies from offering securities without providing investors a prospectus, according to Stephen Sonne, a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP who handles many IPOs. Companies are allowed to send out limited notices on a stock sale without a prospectus as long as the communications tell investors where to get the documents, he said.
Google
Companies that make technical mistakes in preparing for initial public offerings -- one example was Internet search engine Google Inc. -- will sometimes notify investors that they may have the right to rescind their purchases, a step that requires the company to buy back the shares at cost. Investors rarely exercise such rights because under most circumstances the IPO shares they purchased have increased in value since the stock sale.
``This stuff happens with some frequency, but it normally happens in an up market when nobody gives a darn,'' said Edward Fleischman, a former SEC commissioner who is now senior counsel at the law firm Linklaters. ``This one happened to hit an offering where the price went off.''
Vonage said in the SEC filing that the Web site for the customer share program required potential investors to open an electronic copy of the prospectus before making an offer to purchase shares. ``It is, therefore, impossible for someone to place an order'' for the IPO shares without receiving the required documents, Vonage said in the filing.
According to Fleischman, investors can tell the underwriters they don't want to follow through with promises to purchase shares in the Vonage IPO, citing the possible violations disclosed in the offering documents. Should the underwriters insist on payment, investors can then sue. Another alternative is for the company and the underwriters to cancel all trades in Vonage stock and redo the IPO.
Share Drop
Shares of Vonage have dropped in five of its six trading days, extending the decline today by 39 cents to $11.63 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The market value dropped to $1.82 billion from $2.6 billion at the IPO.
Vonage has been increasing marketing expenditures to fend off competition for new customers, leading to net losses of $261 million last year and $85.2 million for this year's first quarter. The spat with existing customers over company shares could set back such efforts.
``The goal was to reward customers and drive loyalty and it appears to be in some cases having the opposite effect,'' said Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Capital in New York. He rates the shares ``sell'' and doesn't own any. | |
| | | |
|
|
Vonage Pre-IPO Customers Don't Pay
·
·
Not surprised stock price dropped after IPO
·