I just had an odd experience with Ameritrade representatives. On 1/10, they tell me that there would be no payment for fractional shares on a recent merger with one of the stocks I had per their documentation. On 1/13, they reversed that and made a personal adjustment to my account. I'm wondering if other Ameritrade users have had similar experiences where fractional shares had not been compensated for. I would think it beyond normal that a fractional share would need a personal adjustment after calling them back, and not when the merger settled. I have to wonder if laws were broken by Ameritrade for failure to pay when due.
It turns out my broker, Ameritrade, had their heads up their butt. First, they said that there would be none, but now they reversed that and made an adjustment to my account on the 13th after I called them back on the 13th. They first told me that none would be paid per their documentation, so I can only wonder if other LPS shareholders faced a similar experience. I needed to have the fractional share paid through that personal adjustment to my account and not when the merger finalized with the other settlements.
the alternative for sellers is clearly amazon. amazon has gone up while ebay has fallen. the charts show that emazon is clearly taking market share from ebay.
As a user of ebay, I am shocked at the way ebay support is negligent and condoning of fraud and policy abuse. Every time I have a problem that is reported to ebay support, customer support does not want to resolve the issue and it looks like this is widespread. Having supplied overwhelming evidence of fraud and policy abuse, ebay support clearly condones this by failing to take any action. Looks like a lot of ebay users are now migrating to amazon.com since you can not trust ebay to back its own policies. I have lost all confidence in ebay and I am sure many feel likewise and go to amazon.com as well.
i'm amused by your logic. a 1/2 hour of the trading day = 1 whole trading day of no short talk. makes sense only to illogical people like you.
yes, in a few years, most good stocks will be higher than they are now. but i was replying to a post that said 50 - 60 in the short-term. i cannot see a valid justification for that. some of the reasons you point out are shaky. check yahoos's performance charts. cash flow has been negative the past 2 quarters. just because there is no debt does not mean strong financials, look at the current ratio. declining internet companies mean declining revenues. this is not the dot-com boom again. this will see lower numbers before they see higher numbers.
2004/2005? that sure is a long way off and anything can happen between now and then. this market will eventually right itself, but to gamble good money on the hopes of something happening in 3-4 years? does anyone remember 1999 when they said everyone would be a millionaire if you got in on internet stocks?i'd rather go to vegas, i'd have better odds there. i have not heard one valid justification of why vrsn deserves to be at 50, much less 60. although there have been several statements that validates a lower price. too many companies have suffered recently, and vrsn is not immune. get out while you can, this company has seen better prices only in the past. it may be a while before you can think of 200, but why risk it now?
what a laugh riot. vrsn won't go down? then why did it go to the 40's from the 200's? that sounds like down to me. in today's market, all 52 week lows are being broken, even for dow jones companies. and you say vrsn is better than everything else. why are most people that are long afraid of the shorters? sounds like you got in high and have a huge loss. oh by the way, did you happen to notice fewer internet companies surviving nowadays. and venture capital and other lenders have become shy of going all out in investing in the new dot coms. you need customers for revenues. all the people that are long keep coming up with statements that don't justify. last i checked, vrsn was down in afterhours.
where do you get a $200 - 300 valuation. we all heard the same things about amazon, qcom, pcln, etc. now those analysts are being investigated for shorting the stock while they upgraded it. i would like to believe we could go back to 1999 and reach impossible numbers just on someone's belief it should be there, but the stock has trended downwards, is hovering around the 20 day m.a. - a common short area for down trending stocks, is overbought on the stochastics, faces an uncertain future in today's shaky internet economy, has declining stock holders equity, has insiders selling more than buying, has lower than minimum 2 current ratio, has been losing cash flow for the past 2 quarters which already adds back the amortization, etc. I'd like to believe a stock that can quadruple at minimum nowadays, but vrsn is not it. the financial and technical indicators say it won't. If the people at vrsn expect $200 - 300 price targets, why are they selling and not buying? maybe even repurchase it's own shares as so many companies have done lately.
in a downtrending market, do you really think vrsn can stay at these lofty levels with such a high p/e? just check the stochastics for any time frame on this stock. expect a decline in stock price.
I agree that DNCC is a great buy now. Stock looks
like it has bottomed out by now. Company did mention
its future growth looks good. With this stock trading
at only a fraction of its book value and barely any
debt, should come back nicely by next year. Don't
regret not buying this stock.