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.

Non-Tech : Goldman Sachs Group Inc. NYSE:GS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sepp who wrote (109)	5/7/1999 5:48:00 PM
From: henry jakala	Respond to of 411

sepp - maybe you can do an expose' on how well datek is executing their customer's orders this last week ? nobody that i know of has been able to get any answers from them as to what the problem even is - it sure would be nice to get to the bottom of this mess sad situation for datek customers

To: sepp who wrote (109)	5/8/1999 7:06:00 AM
From: B. A. Marlow	Respond to of 411

Dear Ms. Epperson: [Copy to GS thread] Thanks for being alert on the Silicon Investor message board and getting the Goldman Sachs/Datek story out and on the air. Unfortunately, your report begs a couple of questions. To begin with, Datek is to blame for only part of this snafu. Offering its customers a "bone" (10 or 20 no-charge trades, depending on how loudly one screams) is an unacceptable response at best, and may even represent a violation of securities law. Even if it isn't, it's a violation of contract law, which requires "offer," "acceptance" and "consideration." I believe all three are present here. If the trade is confirmed, the customer has the right to rely on it. Seeing your post Friday morning and realizing that your story was underway, I consulted my broker at PaineWebber about this kind of "error." PaineWebber's position is unequivocal: if the firm makes this sort of mistake (and mistakes can certainly occur), it's required to make the customer whole, no exceptions. Thus, Datek's response to its 500 customers falls very far short. These people are entitled to the GS shares they purchased at the offering price of $53. If I still have your attention, let me add something. The way Goldman handled this IPO is reprehensible. You should be clear that it gave allocations of shares to its co-managers and then effectively took them back, paying these firms millions simply for being part of the "club." In turn, the customers of these firms were denied participation in the IPO and were turned away. (Goldman's argument will be that these co-managers had been on the hook to support the stock and were thus, entitled to a fee even if Goldman later withdrew the stock, to which withdrawal it will maintain it had the contractual right. This argument is transparent and offensive as it flies in the face of fairness to investors while implicating in a sham all of the co-managers, including Datek and PaineWebber.) Apparently, the only shares available to individual investors other than high-net-worth GS clients were the handful offered through Wit Capital, in whom GS is a 22 percent investor. So, no surprise, the real issue is this: Should IPOs be available on a fair and reasonable basis (say, via lottery) to all who want them? Should the securities industry be allowed to hide behind regulation for which it has lobbied and operate in smoke-filled rooms? This is the real story and I hope you choose to expose it. Alas, the fish stinks from the head. The system is corrupt, everybody knows it and investors are demanding reform. Is CNBC part of the problem or part of the solution? With best wishes. Sincerely, B. A. Marlow P.S. If you're willing to pursue the real "enterprise" story, there are many here who'd be happy to give you some direction. I'm just a private investor (not a Datek client and no position in GS) who's looking for an "honest man." For some hints as to what's at the tip of this iceberg, you might start by reviewing this recent and colorful piece in "TheStreet.com:" thestreet.com