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.

Technology Stocks : IDT *(idtc) following this new issue?* -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawaii60 who wrote (11174)	7/12/1999 12:35:00 AM
From: Mr. Pink	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 30916

Deal like this are not good for a small fry like IDTC nortelnetworks.com Mr. P$nk

To: Hawaii60 who wrote (11174)	7/12/1999 8:07:00 AM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30916

More IDT stuff from Herb greenberg this AM. More IDT-idiocy: The mail keeps pouring in, but one comment I keep getting is that investors in IDT's (IDTC:Nasdaq) soon-to-be-public Net2Phone subsidiary, such as AOL (AOL:NYSE), GE Capital and Softbank, certainly must've done their due diligence. So must have Bankers Trust, CIBC World Markets and Lehman Commercial Paper, which recently underwrote $150 mil in commercial paper for a bond buyback for IDT. So must have Hambrecht & Quist, Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown and Bear Stearns, which are the underwriters for the upcoming IPO. To which I say: You would think. But think back to the IPO insanity of the mid-1990s, when bankers were so busy doing so many deals that due diligence (many of them will admit) was a joke. Go back and look at my Media Vision stories in the SF Chronicle. (Media Vision since went bankrupt, and its former CEO has been indicted for securities fraud.) This was one of the hottest deals (and subsequent stocks) of its day, but after the company blew up, it became clear that its investment bankers and even venture capitalists didn't do simple background checks on the CEO that would've kept any sane investor away from the company. I am not saying history is repeating itself, but it's one of the lessons I carry with me and it's one reason I trust nobody. Nobody! Short-sellers and other sources often pass along snippets of this and snippets of that from public documents. I then go back, on my own, and review the whole document. Or ask for copies if they're not easily available. Even good sources have been known to leave out, or overlook, pertinent details. I'm always amazed at how many of my very best sources fail to read the proxy, which is the first document I turn to because it shows how much the execs are paid (is it egregious?); who is on the board (is it the old boys network?); and what kind of related party transactions involving board members are disclosed (too close for comfort?). Sets the tone for the type of company you're dealing with. Reader Subodh Nijsure wonders what process I go through when I do a story on a company like IDT. It varies from company to company, but in the case of IDT, after reviewing the documents, I simply called the company. I have public disclosures that raise questions, and it's the company's job to explain them. Simple as that. Unbelievable how many IDT-iots accuse me of printing innuendo when, in fact, I was dealing with fact. And asking questions every investor should've been asking. Can't accuse IDT of not disclosing its loan to Lermer Overseas Telecommunications (which didn't technically exist) at a low 5%. Investors should be accused of not inquiring about it. One IDT-iot actually wondered how I knew the loan was 5%. Because it was in the 10-K! Oh, and why do I continue to waste precious space printing some of my emails: Because, from time to time it's important to show the character and cult of investors behind some of these stocks. Reader Andrew Boord put it best when, after reading some of my IDT-o-grams, he wrote: "Your job is like trying to cure those who don't believe they are sick." Which leads to one other thing: Libel on message boards is a serious issue. My being a journalist doesn't give anybody a license to print lies about me, JJC or any other journalist. You should see some of 'em; They're doozies. And if you think JJC and I are in cahoots, go back and read his recent comments on the subject.