Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Goes Public
fluffhead234 writes: "Looks like IPO's for internet companies can still bring in something. PayPal, the online payment people, raised just over 70 million in their IPO: PPay Pal IPO"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
All very well and good. But the vast majority of their business relies on E-Bay which may or may not, be developing its own payment system.. I'm sorry but the whole thing still seems on very shaky ground. Oh and it still aint great if your outside of North America.
"Enlightenment is your ego's biggest disappointment." --Yoginanda
Looks like IPO's for internet companies can still bring in something.
IPOs always bring in something; an IPO just means that the institutions that are underwriting it buy a set amount of stock, then offer it for sale on the market. The company itself risks nothing, as the stock was bought for an agreed-upon price beforehand.
If the stock tanks, they still get 70 million.
Since payPal is being sued over its primary technology, this stock would be very risky.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
There's a an article over at http://www.ipofinancial.com/pow/archive.php?oid=10 4 which has a bit more info, from a financial analyst's viewpoint, but in plain english.
creation science book
here!
.BOOM), paypal doesn't and hasn't made a profit. keep that in mind.
this actually held up the first attempt at an IPO several weeks ago.
another thing to remember is, unlike most business that IPO today (and not in the
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
Remember this, from a /. story a while back?
No PayPal
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
In fact, there is a growing literature which suggests companies purposely limit the number of shares issued in the IPO. This low supply of shares causes the stock to rise in the ensuing days and months as additional investors purchase the stock and analysts begin issuing recommendations. After the lockup, insiders then begin to sell shares in earnest at these high prices which are at least in part due to the manipulative effects of a small number of shares offerred at the IPO. In short, while there may be short-term gains to be made in the stock, be cautious after the lock-up expires.
Also note that in the past two years the company has managed to lose 1/4 of a billion bucks and is not sure when it will be profitable. That's not exactly the kind of words that bring confidence in this market environment.
Although the market for IPO's was much smaller in 2001 than in years past, those companies that did come public tended to be more profitable and had better business models and a proven record of success; and they performed relatively well. I don't think PYPL fits this mold, however, so LOOK OUT BELOW! (after a short run upwards).
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
It was actually an "Ask Slashdot" from this past December:s html
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/12/10/1713224.
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
There is a plethora of P2P payment services from the big financial services firms(c2it by Citi) to regular banks and such.
Of course, VISA, MasterCard, American Express and the other associations all have "initiatives" to understand and exploit P2P payments. I think it's great that PayPal has gone public. Wether they make it, are acquired, or burn through the 70 mil raised, at least it will put some more publicity on the P2P payments market.
Anything that shakes up the current merchant-issuer-acquirer-association arrangement might bring reduced rates and a more competitive environment.
Slashdotters need to think twice, thrice,
PayPal have been repeatedly subject to systematic frauds. These frauds which look set to completely destroy any customer/consumer confidence and shareholder value.
I'm a pretty active investor in high-risk high-tech stocks and I will not touch the PayPal IPO.
Check-out this site in particular.
http://www.paypalwarning.com/
And this Google search on PayPal fraud reveals >20K hits.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=activ
IMHO, Think once, think twice, think never.
Not to mention the fact that they no longer allow you to accept credit card payments without a fee... you now have to pay 2-3% (and have a "preferred" membership) in order to accept a payment which comes from a credit card.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
I think anyone who's using PayPal as a bank account is either a) lazy or b) just plain stupid. Like the people who invest in "great opportunities" only to be burned -- you've got to do your research.
Mostly because it is a means of further verifying that you are who you say you are. Since they are not shipping you the products you purchase from Ebay, they have no way of doing even that most basic verification...checking that billing address and shipping address are the proper ones listed on the credit account.
Credit card fraud is pretty damned rampant on the internet anyway, and there's tons of fraud (CC and otherwise) on Ebay. Combine all that into one big lump that PayPal has to deal with, and they have to take measures like that to protect themselves. Most major credit card issuing banks have really stepped up the penalties for sites that do not have sufficient anti-fraud measures in place.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Louisiana has declared PayPal to be a money transfer system (duh!) and that they require licensing from the state to do business in the state.
Since they don't have such a license, they have to quit doing business in Louisiana. Other states are following....
Full article here:
Yahoo News Article
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Errr...your bank a/c number is not secret information. Mine is printed on all my cards and along the bottom of cheques (checks). It's also on statements, letters to/from the bank etc etc. Under no circumstances should you consider something so widely distributed "secret". Knowing my account number will (should!) not help an attacker gain access to my money. The bank are required to establish my identity, for instance with a signature. Failure to do so puts the liability on them to refund me for any fraud.
If someone walks into a bank and empties my account as cash, all the police have to do is look at the CCTV and show that it wasn't me. If they want to do it by phone/internet then my account number is actually not involved, it's traditional username/password. If they want to do it with forged cheques (checks) then the bank are liable as they accepted forgeries as valid. If they want to use an ATM, again the a/c number is of little importance, the PIN is much more important. Don't forget - a/c numbers are for the most part sequential.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"