Hello Scott,
So far, my predictions have all come true. And I continue to think
that the stock will fall below 30 by the end of 1998. (Which, by
the way, is not too far off from it's near-term low in the 30's.)
When the stock was in the 80's, I started this thread by noting
that the P/E was too high, and it was a good time to short. I was correct. (see the opening post of this thread.)
Before the first shares were unlocked, I predicted the price would
drop when it happened, and I was right. (see post #11 from this
thread).
Before the end of the 180-day lockup, I predicted that the price would
fall again, and I was correct again. (See post #14 and #32 from this
thread.)
I also predicted that with downard price pressure resulting from the
end of the lockout period, the underwriters would respond and work
to bolster the stock price. (See post #11 from this thread.) I
expected a press release of this type earlier than this, but I was
nontheless correct again.
The same thing happened to Xylan, Forte, and Netscape, all
high-flying high-tech IPO's taken public by Morgan Stanley. At
the end of their 180-day lockout, the underwriters took steps to
bolster confidence in the stock, which led to an increase in price. The price increases have not lasted, however. Others in this thread,
and in the main thread, have commented on the same phenomena.
For what it's worth, this sharp one-day increase in price surprised
me, although I WAS NOT surprised that the underwriters took action
to bolster the stock price.
As far as my "tone of authority with no reasoned argument or
evidence", I'm afraid I must disagree with you: I have always pointed
to the outrageous P/E as the evidence that the stock is overvalued.
Nothing in this message should be construed as an allegation of
misconduct or illegality on the part of the underwriters; everything
I write is my opinion only.
Sincerely,
John Wallner
|
