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 : PALM - The rebirth of Palm Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Square_Dealings who wrote (1397)	8/27/2000 3:41:18 PM
From: David E. Taylor	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 6784

Michael: I wasn't going to bother responding, but anyone new to the Palm thread might actually think there was a smidgen of merit to your unwarranted post. So: (1) Your friend on the MDD thread needs to get his facts straight. The 532,000,000 PALM shares to which he/she refers were distributed to COMS shareholders on 7/27/00. There was never any lock up on the distributed shares, and the shareholders who received those 532,000,000 shares have been free to trade them since that date. (2) The lockups on the 6 million PALM shares taken in the IPO by AOL/NOK/MOT also expired 7/27/00, as did the lockup on 2 to 3 million PALM shares bought by officers/directors of 3Com/Palm. (3) There has clearly never been any lockup on the 26 million or so shares IPO'd back on 3/2/00. So, why would Goldman Sachs feel obliged to say anything about "lockups" when the entire PALM float has been trading since the 532 million shares were distributed on 7/27? I might add that I was surprised to see my post on the Goldman Sachs PALM recommendation on the SI "cool post" list today, since my post was in fact a "non-post" because the GS report I received was proprietary and not something I could openly publish. But I chose to try to give the Palm thread a sense of the tone of the GS report in my post, while I sought permission to publish a synopsis. If I get that permission, I'll do just that, and people can judge for themselves whether my characterization of the GS report was accurate or not. You'll note that my post did include a note for the people new to the Palm thread to the effect that GS underwrote the PALM IPO and that their report may therefore be regarded as "biased". I should perhaps have added that GS also owns PALM shares, a fact that is well known to anyone who has followed PALM prior to or since the IPO. I believe there was a followup post to mine on the Palm thread which pointed out that additional fact. Finally, I'd like you to know that "spam" has never, is not, and never will be on my menu. I try hard to keep my facts straight, provide sources for those facts, separate my opinions from facts, and to make clear the assumptions in any analysis I choose to share. And do you seriously think that a single post on SI could affect the trading of an almost 600 million share float in PALM? My apologies to the thread for the long winded response to Mr. Finsterwald. David T.

To: Square_Dealings who wrote (1397)	8/27/2000 5:49:22 PM
From: UnBelievable	Respond to of 6784

Michael - My original information about the PALM lock up expiration came from today's (August 27,2000) New York Times Business Section - Part 2 Data Bank. It is in the lower right hand portion of the page in The Week Ahead section under the heading Lockup Expirations. There is also information indicating a PALM IPO lock up expiration at ipohome.com When someone asked about the information on MDD I checked an other lockup expiration site and found that the expiration was listed as July 18, 2000. The individual who brought this to my attention indicated that he was aware of people who had been issued shares at that time. While I find it strange that the NYT and IPOHome both had the wrong information that would seem to be the case. GS was the lead underwriter BTW