The similarities to "Boiler Room" are uncanny

Posts: 30 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 30

I was just thinking, the similarities of this Vonage pre-market "pump-and-dump" are horrifyingly similar to the movie "Boiler Room".

In the movie, brokers sell pre-market IPO shares of a failing medical company to everyday Joe Public, pumping the share price higher and higher.

When the stock goes public, it plummets and the owners and investors of the firm are dumping shares.

Joe Public is left holding the bag as the stock heads for pink-sheet territory. The owners of the firm and the investors who have been dumping their shares to Joe Public all along the way, stand to make a fortune.

The movie has a happy ending. The bad guys get arrested.

Boiler Room. Pump-and-Dump. These are words that come to mind when I think of Vonage stock.

Posts: 8 · New Forum Member Joined: May 24, 2006 Posts: 8

Actually JT Marlin was a "chopshop" and there never was a "real" medical company remember when Seth went to the location it was nothing but a boarded up building.

Posts: 80 · Vonage Forum Senior Joined: May 24, 2006 Posts: 80

I liked the movie, but I do not think it is fair to compare Vonage to what happend in the movie.

While Vonage was probably quite overpriced at the IPO price, I don't think anyone questions that Vonage is a real company operating a real business.

Posts: 5 · New Forum Member Joined: May 31, 2006 Posts: 5

You're right the bankers completely took advantage of us. They knew how much the stock was worth...they're the ones who priced it. They didn't buy any of it themselves on the open market which proves they never believed in it. Vonage is a joke of a stock. They stole money from their own customers. I can't wait to see how much money they loose from customer defections as a result of this "theft".

Posts: 16 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: May 31, 2006 Posts: 16

Pump 'n dump? Has this turned into a troll forum? Even the most addled among us know how the stock market works. Or are you all proving that conclusion wrong?