Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : XSNI - X-Stream Network -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey D who wrote (1920)	7/10/1999 2:05:00 AM
From: Jeffrey D	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3519

Freeserve offering price will be 1.5b. From the 7/10/99 London Times. Jeff << Dixons prices Freeserve at 'only £1.5bn' BY CHRIS AYRES FREESERVE, the free Internet service owned by Dixons Group, is likely to be valued at £1.5 billion - the very bottom end of City expectations - when its flotation prospectus is issued on Monday. The prospectus, to be finalised this weekend, will also include a 10-page "health warning", describing the many "risk factors" involved in buying shares in a highly valued Internet company with no significant trading record, tiny sales, and no profits. The Stock Exchange, which could have refused permission for Freeserve to float because of its lack of a trading record, demanded that the extensive risk analysis be included in the prospectus. "The disclosure was necessary for the Stock Exchange to be satisfied that investors would know what they were buying," a source close to the float told The Times. In spite of this, more than 100,000 Freeserve users have already registered to buy shares in the company, which was the first to launch a large-scale free Internet service in Britain. However, the number of users who have registered to buy shares represents only a fraction of the company's 1.25 million "active" subscribers - so called because they access their Freeserve account more than once every 40 days. Dixons sources yesterday claimed that this was "in line with expectations". However, in a survey conducted by MoneyWorld, the personal finance Internet service, nearly 60 per cent of 2,300 respondents said they thought Freeserve was worth less than £600 million. Only 24 per cent of respondents said it was worth more than £1.8 billion. Many believe that Dixons has deliberately encouraged overinflated valuations of Freeserve - with some analysts claiming that it is worth up to £3 billion - so that it can surprise the City by offering it at a "heavily discounted" price. The success of the float is seen as crucial because it is the first large scale Internet company to go public in the UK. Already, Freeserve has encouraged a wave of other Internet companies to join the stock market. These include: QXL, an online auctioneer, which will float in September with a planned valuation of £750 million; the eXchange, an online financial services company which is planning to float this summer with a valuation of up to £400 million; and Funmail, a novelty e-mail service set up by a public relations executive, which is also planning to float this summer with a value of £30 million. Senior City sources say Dixons expects Freeserve's "fully distributed value" - ie, after 30 days of trading when all the shares are issued - will be about £2 billion. However, they believe the company's flotation price should be at a significant discount to this value. Most flotation discounts are about 10 to 15 per cent, but Internet discounts can be 30 per cent or more, the source said. Freeserve's flotation discount is expected to be between 25 and 30 per cent. Freeserve's flotation prospectus will also include updated subscriber numbers, which are likely to be significantly higher than the 1.25 million recorded at the end of May, thanks to the company's extensive national advertising campaign. This will help boost City sentiment towards the flotation, because the company has so far been valued on a "per subscriber" basis. This is similar to the way America OnLine, the US Internet company, is valued. WEBSITE: www.freeserve.co.uk/

To: Jeffrey D who wrote (1920)	7/10/1999 6:39:00 AM
From: Jacalyn Deaner	Respond to of 3519

Ahhh Jeffrey D aka JS - you had SI Bob remove your posts pertaining to litiguous innuendos and your inferences, by saying on July 5 the company had cause to sue me, I DON'T THINK SO - well, it appears you tried to get rid of some of your background huh? by having SI Bob remove your posts - BUT do not worry, I have kept them in a safe place - no delusion here buddy - for instance here is a response by me to your now () post - you will have to remember what you wrote; without a hard copy, your memory will fade but the FACTS will be available. Running for cover there Jeffrey D aka JS? You are going to be busy trying to remember just what you did and did not say if you don't have hard copies of all the posts you have had SI Bob remove for you. And we have your Bud - To: Jeffrey D ( ) From: Jon C Monday, Jul 5 1999 12:07PM ET Reply # of 1922 Jeff, Dale mentioned the cultural differences the other day and this is another example. I have never heard of this in the UK. Howver where the intrepid Americans go the Uk usually follows (Usually in about 15 years((we(not me mind) are a consevative bunch and the average brit does not like to see his neighbour being succesful)) Regards Jon C Next Previous Not only that but in another response to your threat of one of your posts still on the board, here is a comment and I am not the author of this comment: It would be interesting to see XSNI try to sue someone for asking questions, like whether XSNI will release financial information commonly available for other companies with a NASDAQ listing or aspiring to have one. my post 1787 link text below Message 10385022 To: Jeffrey D ( ) From: Jacalyn Deaner Monday, Jul 5 1999 12:49PM ET Reply # of 1921 JS: FWIW - your presumption about bashing - let them sue a shareholder who has asked for clarification when it was found out Lehman's could not and would not acknowledge XSNI which manning said was being moved to the "corrected" listing by Lehmans, and that along with that listing corrction, it would become the IPO. Andy Laslow @ Lehman's UK - "What makes you think an OTCBB would even be considered for an IPO? And prove that XSNI is xstream UK." Also don't forget "our man of integrity" in the UK, Mike Langdon who posted lots of information and provided names and dates via emails - and all I wanted was confirmation by manning or an officer of the corporation and third party verification, which to date has been absent. Your inference is heard loudly and clearly JS, however, the publicity would do manning no good and I am just a shareholder with some valid concerns. Ever hear of a frivilous law suit. Go ask your buddies on the Lars thread. Could be a great avenue for discovery and to find out exactly what XSNI consists of. As I have indicated throughout my posts on this thread, all of my documentation is in public records, past documents in courts the UK exchange, the US papers, etc. All I have been doing is requesting clarification, and all questions began as soon as Lehmans UK would not substantiate manning's claims. Frivolous, and I could countersue as well :) - this has taken such a toll... As for GAAY, you are slimey johnny come lately as usual. but in this case, better late than never; do some dd - you will find your beloved profitpicks happened to select a good stock for once. Thank god I do other dd underground, so you don't get hold of my other holdings and latch onto them too.

To: Jeffrey D who wrote (1920)	7/10/1999 7:15:00 AM
From: Jacalyn Deaner	Respond to of 3519

Yo Jeffrey D aka JS let me refresh your memory and those lawyers reading the board: To: Jacalyn Deaner (1787 ) From: Jeffrey D Monday, Jul 5 1999 4:07PM ET Reply # of 1922 JD:<< your presumption about bashing - let them sue a shareholder who has asked for clarification >. Oh, I see, you calling Manning and others criminals and you declaring that X-Stream is just a scam was just "clarification." RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT! Jeff and my response - you have a problem there Jeffrey D aka JS Subject: XSNI - X-Stream Network To: Jeffrey D From: Jacalyn Deaner Jul 5 1999 4:18PM EST Reply #1803 of 1922 point out where I actually used the verbage and pronouns accusing anyone of being a crim or where I stipulated and used the word scam; all I did was present a direct line of events the way they happened and the date line they occurred at; I did say that manning did provide erroneous and misleading information intentionally and wilfully. That he had been involved in past failures is not a matter of my speaking out - it is a matter of public record. That you post something that I did NOT say is more reason to doubt anything you say. Whatever I say on the posts, I have forwarded to manning et al for them to clarify and "nip any misconception and misinformation" in the bud. You had better go to your legal friends quickly and find out what libelous and slandrous accusations will get YOU caught up in JS; when YOU say something about me, be sure you have all your ducks in a row because when you are addressed with a TRO, that will be the first of many litigous incumbrances you will endure. This post of yours puts you in my "peripheral focus" file and the game is "on". :) Jacalyn