> > ... or "asking" > > Oh sure, just omit crucial information and make prospective investors > ask, assuming they figure out they can ask and don't simply conclude > that there must be a good reason the information is missing in the > first place. A completely user-hostile approach.
This is what you get if you cut out the underwriter. It is easy to criticise the underwriter for making a profit on the stocks they bring on the market, but actually they are offering a service that is not any different from a real estate agent for example. If a company decides to do an ipo it could do all the work itself , which means creating the prospectus, advertising the new ipo, and so on, but it is just more effective to let an experienced company do that. They know what information the investors will need (TGC was blissfully unaware of that), they can calculate what value the ipo can be priced at, and they also usually agree to buy any shares that cannot be sold in the ipo for a certain agreed minimum price (so if the ipo is no succes the underwriter takes a loss there). In return for this service the underwriter gets a certain fee. So, TGC's prospectus is lacking all kinds of vital information, and you are supposed to go and ask... Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
