| Author |
Message |
DigitalVoice
Vonage Forum Master


Joined: Dec 14, 2004
Posts: 162
Location: Phoenix
|
| trillian wrote: |
No. Verizon would buy them at $2.50.
Despite all of their problems, it's probably worth $2.50. I wouldn't bank on it going lower than that. If you're shorting, get out now. |
More like $2.78. But who's counting. Read:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1078
Nice blog... almost a year ago! |
|
|
|
|
 |
brian188
Vonage Forum Master


Joined: Mar 04, 2006
Posts: 203
|
| trillian wrote: |
No. Verizon would buy them at $2.50.
Despite all of their problems, it's probably worth $2.50. I wouldn't bank on it going lower than that. If you're shorting, get out now. |
Why would Verizon do that? They just won 58 million from them in court today, and possible future royalties. Which means higher prices for you. Good luck to Verizon in collecting though... |
|
|
|
|
 |
trillian
Full Forum Member


Joined: May 25, 2006
Posts: 66
|
| Quote: | | Why would Verizon do that? |
It's a no-brainer for them to do it at the right price point. On so many different levels.
| Quote: | | They just won 58 million from them in court today, and possible future royalties. |
Whether or not to buy a company is a decision based on whether you can make a profit on what you paid for it. It's nothing to do with Court actions or licence fees. It's all about profit - can I take get this company for $x and make it worth $y, to me.
| Quote: | | Nice blog... almost a year ago! |
This is one of the things I've never understood. That information was in the prospectus! Forget blogs, it was in the sales literature for the stock. A year ago? It was pre-sale information.
Did the majority of people that bought stock at $17 not read the literature? Is that the issue? |
|
|
|
|
 |
trillian
Full Forum Member


Joined: May 25, 2006
Posts: 66
|
| Quote: | | Why would Verizon do that? |
It's a no-brainer for them to do it at the right price point. On so many different levels.
| Quote: | | They just won 58 million from them in court today, and possible future royalties. |
Whether or not to buy a company is a decision based on whether you can make a profit on what you paid for it. It's nothing to do with Court actions or licence fees. It's all about profit - can I take get this company for $x and make it worth $y, to me.
| Quote: | | Nice blog... almost a year ago! |
This is one of those comments that I've never understood. That information was in the prospectus! Forget blogs, it was in the sales literature for the stock. A year ago? It was pre-sale information. Rusell Shaw (the blogger) copy/pasted that from the prospectus! It wasn't a prediction, it's just stating facts. The blogger is simply stating that he's read the prospectus and the company trying to sell you it's stock is basically saying it's priced it at $17 but it's worth $2.78. That's not clever blogging, that's just reading the small print.
Did the majority of people that bought stock at $17 not read the literature? Is that the issue? |
|
|
|
|
 |
fanninja
Vonage Forum Senior


Joined: Jun 01, 2006
Posts: 75
|
| trillian wrote: | | Did the majority of people that bought stock at $17 not read the literature? Is that the issue? |
Yes, I believe that's it in a nutshell. |
|
|
|
|
 |
DigitalVoice
Vonage Forum Master


Joined: Dec 14, 2004
Posts: 162
Location: Phoenix
|
| trillian wrote: | | Did the majority of people that bought stock at $17 not read the literature? Is that the issue? |
Come on. A Blog tends to put things into some sort of perspective. A prospectus cannot.
And sorry to disappoint you, blogs aren't literature either.... |
|
|
|
|
 |
trillian
Full Forum Member


Joined: May 25, 2006
Posts: 66
|
| Quote: | | A Blog tends to put things into some sort of perspective. A prospectus cannot. |
The prospectus stated that the stock was worth $2.75. What more "perspective" would anyone need? You need a blogger to tell you what the prospectus says?
That really surprises me. But I'm not complaining. I made money out of people that did that.
| Quote: | | blogs aren't literature either.... |
Absolutely agreed. Prospectus' are, however. There are stock exchange rules and regulations that govern how they are produced. You can't bullsh1t in a prospectus. |
|
|
|
|
 |
xmeyer
Vonage Forum Associate


Joined: May 31, 2006
Posts: 20
|
Are you referring to the Dilution section where it is stated that post ipo the book value per share will be $2.78? 'Cuz if so, there is a lot more one might need. Stocks, in general, don't trade at the book value per share. GOOG is trading at close to 10 times that. VZ at over 2, MSFT at over 7. This tells you about obvious shorts? At $17, VG was trading at over 6. I prefer the point that what a company can charge for non-mobile voice transmission is going to zero. That is a trend anyone can see now and could have seen then. In my opinion, this is why this pure voice company never had a chance of making money. We sure could be wrong, however, VG is trading more than a million shares every day and there is a buyer on one side of every transaction. |
|
|
|
|
 |
DigitalVoice
Vonage Forum Master


Joined: Dec 14, 2004
Posts: 162
Location: Phoenix
|
| trillian wrote: | | You need a blogger to tell you what the prospectus says? |
Like many, I can't read a prospectus.
So I am very happy that I found this blog. Yes. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|