Salon on the Red Hat IPO Eligibility 219
Definitely the hot topic this week. Salon is running a quite passionate article written by a hacker who was rejected by E*Trade
to participate in the RH IPO in august.
his story reads like many of the emails I've got in the last couple days. Hacks don't have liquid net worth, so they're being
rejected on that grounds? Its a good piece.
Why be mad? (Score:1)
Money is one of the few objective criteria we have in this country for measuring value. When you remove this element (ala free software), you basically disconnect it from the capitalist engine that drives the US economy. This is a cost of free software, and the proponents of the free software movement need to be prepared to deal with it. I don't think it can work both ways - that is, to claim that all software should be free, and then complain that because it *is* free, they haven't made any money off of it. Ironically, this money is required to participate in other sectors of the economy.
what I don't get (Score:2)
I did not receive the letter, but the announcement of the IPO induced me to open an E*Trade account and I'm in pretty much the same boat as all those other guys. So what was the big deal Red Hat was offering?
Kook9 out.
Ah, but it's *my choice* (Score:1)
But I was refused, simply because I'm not a trader or whatever is required. Ummm, but see, I wanted to invest this money in Red Hat because I spend a majority of my *life* working with The Product, supporting The Product, and helping The Product.
Sure, I want to make some cash, but it's not that important -- my personal intent was to just hold onto the stock and let it sit for a long time, kinda like applying my money in the same way I apply my time. I spend far more time working on Red Hat stuff than a mere $2000 can cover, as I'm sure most people do -- it's all about investing in something you believe in, kinda they way you invest in the code.
So, it sure would be nice if they had just said "You know, sir, that you don't meet the standard profile for investing. Are you sure about this, you could loose all your money." And my response? "Sure, I know. But if I loose my money, it's my fault. And I can always get more money -- Red Hat is only going on the IPO block once in my lifetime."
Money is easy to come by in life. Belief isn't.
-te
Re:Email Red Hat (Score:1)
Bowie
PROPAGANDA [themes.org]
All this inane bitching is senseless. (Score:1)
I got the note too. I don't qualify either. I'm not thrilled, but I'm not totally pissed off either. You guys want the big payoff? Go out and either start a company that goes somewhere and either goes IPO or gets bought, or go pay your dues at some startup that's early on in its development. I'm doing the latter. I'm putting in crazy hours at the office making things work (I'm the CTO, I've got a serious interest in making it work). I've got many friends that think I'm nuts for doing it, but the difference? They'll still be slaving away for "the man" when they're 40. I won't.
Quit living life looking for a handout. Go and make it happen for yourself.
Re:The road to hell is paved with stockbrokers. (Score:1)
Eligibility profile to use Open Source Software. (Score:1)
Unfortunately, the way things turned out now, they might actually have increased the probability of just such a backlash. Just imagine, what happened if a few months from now, suddenly various assorted programs on your favorite RedHat CD started to prompt you with the following questionnaire before accepting to run:
Computer Experience
Computer Usage Objectives
Affiliations
Not A US Citizen? Not Even A Chance. (Score:1)
I'm surprised noone has complained about this: it does seem that Red Hat tried to avoid non-US addresses in their mailout, but even so, GNU/Linux isn't a US product, even if Red Hat is.
Rusty.
Re:Why I am mad. (Score:1)
Rules should constantly be re-evaluated on whether they achieve their objective and whether their objective is a desirable one.
The E*TRADE eligibility form's objective seems as if it is to ensure that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. I, for one, am curious as to how much the NASD specifies in their eligibility requirements. Somehow I doubt that NASD would set the exact qualifications for participating in an IPO.
That said, I think the person who started this thread speaks for most of us who are angered by E*TRADE. We do not want to sell quickly (some of us may want to sell some if it skyrockets, but not most or all). I think that most of the people who got "the letter" are like me and the other poster, who buy Official Red Hat CD's as basically charity to support the future development of Linux. We have been following this company for years and believe in it, and are willing to lose all of money, since it would mean that it would be better for Linux, if not better for us.
I, for one, want to invest in Red Hat. Not just any "hot" IPO, and not just any "open source company". Red Hat is in a unique position to change things. They symbolize a change in not only software, but in ideas about intellectual property. Investing in them is indirectly supporting the idea that ideas should be free.
Many of the other "open source" companies that plan initial public offerings do not have the same commitment. Most of the Linux hardware companies (with the possible exception of VA Research, and maybe others that I am ignorant of) have little to do with the development of Linux. They merely use Linux as a gimmick to get people to buy their hardware rather than their competitors. Yes, they may believe in Linux too, but they do not do anything CLOSE to what Red Hat does to forward these ideals.
Of course, investing at the IPO is a great opportunity because, while we would still want to buy the stock regardless, it gives us a chance to have a great investment at the same time.
There is no "place of residency" SEC rule (Score:1)
Bzzzt. No such SEC rule. If you don't believe me, call Jack Hardy at the SEC (202 942 7040).
According to Christopher Boyce of E*Trade's Compliance Department, the issue is slightly different: If you are a foreign resident; they are concerned that your country might have a regulation that may prevent them to sollicit business there. However, most countries actually have no such rule, it's just a cover-your-ass measure. If you are a foreign resident, you might want to try to get a statement attesting that there is no such law from the regulatory body of your own country, and fax it to Henri Carter, Vice President of the Compliance Department of E*Trade Securities Inc. at 650 331 6806
Good luck.
Protecting the economy from *us* (Score:1)
The salon article worried me a little. Yes, I would have let him invest a small amount of money, a very small amount, but no, I don't think he knows what he's doing. He seems to think that this IPO is free money, and he's essentially investing on credit. It's very bad news if lots of people do this sort of thing with large amounts of money. (But if a few friends of companies lose a few thousand dollars once in a while on a one-time thing, I don't think it's too bad.)
My biggest problem with the etrade.com eligibility requirements is that I really don't think they accomplish what they are supposed to be trying to accomplish. As has been pointed out, they ask about our assets without looking at our debts, and they don't take into account the actual quantity of money we're looking to invest. The actual amount we stand to lose is very very relevant in this case!
If you have little or no debts, a steady income, and a small net worth, it shouldn't be a problem if you risk a portion of your savings on something risky.
Also, the whole concept of companies offering stock like this to employees and friends is a little different, anyway. The same basic economic sanity checks should still apply, of course, but bearing in mind the fact that it is a limited amount of stock and a one-time thing. Normally, you can't say "Oh, it's OK if somebody spends only $1000 dollars investing with borrowed money" because it's an open market, and they could potentially be doing the same thing everywhere else, you can't know. But in cases like this, it's not an open market, and you do know.
I want to own a small piece of RedHat, but I don't want to tell a lie to do it. Come on, etrade, let me in!
Re:The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Score:1)
Why is buying at offring more risky than at opning (Score:1)
One thing that I fail to understand about these so-called SEC rules is why do you have to be eligible if you want to get the shares at IPO price, whereas no eligibility test is done for normal purchases after the IPO. So, you are allowed to buy RHAT when it starts being publically traded on the stock market. However, the opening price is usually higher than the offering price, and usually the price sharply drops during the first day or week, but rarely falls below the offering.
Example: Suppose Red Hat gets priced at $15, opens at $60, and then levels off to $20 over the course of the first week of trading. Those who bought 100 shares at the IPO price will have won $500. However, those who got bounced and who tried there luck by buying at opening (assuming they were that naive) would have lost $4000. So where is the logic in this silly restriction? It seems to be that the restriction is actually pushing investors towards a trade with more risk, not less.
Re:The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Score:1)
I do not know. She wore a sling on her arm for a while, but I don't know if she would have been worse off without a helmet. But you seem to be missing the point, I'm not opposed to helmet use. In fact it think it's a great idea to use a helmet, I'm just against rules and laws which are designed to protect us from ourselves.
LK
On Liberty (Score:1)
Re:8000, not 1000. (Score:1)
Re:The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Score:1)
If you think so, then you don't get what I'm saying.
>It's all well and good to claim that you can do as you please and it's no burden on society. Except that driving without a seatbelt or using a motorcycle without a helmet has a very real price.
No, you definately don't get it. I'm not saying that nothing that I do effects society in any way, but what I am saying is that we can't allow the fact that the things we do may or may not effect others be the only reason for extra laws and rules.
If I eat Big Macs every day for breakfast, lunch, diner, and a midnight snack. I will be more likely to develop heard disease. If I have a heart attack EMS will have to be dispatched to pick me up. Some nurse's aid will have to wipe my ass because of the brain damage that I suffer. It will be expensive for my medical insurance to pay for my care. That will raise the premiums paid by the other people. Is that fair to them because I HAD to have my Big Macs?
This is a slippery slope. People have already suggested imposing a TAX on unhealthy foods. Smoking is an unhealthy behavior which is taxed to hell and back by the federal and state governments of the US. If you cross the border into Mexico you can buy packs of cigarettes for for less than $1.00 each. And at that price there is a heavy markup by people who know what Americans have to pay for them at home.
People should be encouraged to do things because of education, not because of fear of retribution. Do you know the metaphor of the carrot and the stick?
LK
Re:Facile analyses (Score:1)
MRED, I think that you're missing my point. I'm not "anti-seatbelt" I'm just against making it a crime for adults to decide not to buckle up. I don't even drive 1 block without putting my seatbelt on. I just don't think it should be mandatory backed up by the force of law.
LK
Re:You have got to be kidding (Score:1)
I wanted to feel that my work was appreciated, and maybe get a little respect for donating my time for the good of the community. The Red Hat IPO troubles gnaw at us all because our *self-respect* and sense of community *appreciation* are being dissed.
Re:Why does E*Trade do so much fuss about an IPO ? (Score:1)
There are lawyers who live by suing their neighbors; most would settle rather than go to court.
There have been numerous lawsuits by stockholders, day traders, and so forth.
There are, apparently, people who believe that the fact that GM did not design its cars to survive rollovers at 50+ MPH is worth a significant percentage of GM's entire market capitalization.
There are people who attempt to 'Net gamble, lose boatloads, and then disclaim responsibility by suggesting that the gambling be annulled, as it *might* have been illegal.
And so forth. We've got, what, 260-270+ million people here, and a lot of 'em who'll sue...
DAMN it, people! (Score:2)
1) Following rules and regulations, and
2) Covering their ass?
And, the offer letter included notice that there would be a screening, and a link to a sample eligibility form. If you think about it just a little, and look at the form, you could probably have figured out what it takes to get past the screen.
Class action suit.... geez. Whatever. This is the STOCK MARKET, folks. The rules are a bit different (and stricter) than those a lot of Linux supporters are used to, but it's not a grand conspiracy. It's the Way Things Are(tm), for better or worse. All of this "F**K ETRADE" and "F**CK RED HAT" is spitting in the wind. Might as well say "F**CK THE AMERICAN CAPITALIST SYSTEM" - and perhaps you should.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Score:5)
In my state you have to get a fscking license to buy grain alcohol because some idiots died from drinking too much booze (it's usually vodka that people overdo it with, yet grain gets the blame). So statewide only bars and people with political clout can get the license to buy grain alcohol, and we're tole that this is to protect our college age "kids" from themselves. If some asshole wants to put a 750ml bottle of Ever Clear into a beer bong and fry his brain, I say let him/her do it. There's just more
In many states, like my own, we are required to wear seatbelts in our cars. I was an avid seatbelt wearer before the law was passed anyway, so it didn't alter my behavior in any way. But I think that it's horseshit to make it mandatory for adults to "Buckle Up". If someone doesn't want to use a seatbelt and gets turned into hamburger, fine that was his/her choice. It just causes the nations average IQ to go up.
Motorcycle helmets are also mandatory in my state. I remember a local radio/TV personality (John Cigna sp?) was a rather outspoken opponent of mandatory helmet laws until he went headfirst into a brick wall (a la Gary Busey) and the helmet kept his brain on the proper side of his skull. I don't hear him talk much about how those laws are unfair now. BUT, if he wanted to ride without a helmet he should have been able to. If someone is reckless enough to do 60mph down the freeway without head protection, the world might better off without them.
Now back to the IPO, this is the lamest of the "protecting people from themselves" cases that I have seen in years. In the other examples that I listed above the protection is only against something bad happening to the individual, what I mean is that nothing "good" or "great" can come from buying grain alcohol (except maybe a good game of "get the girls drunk"). This however not only protects inexperienced investors from the potential pitfalls of an IPO, but it barrs people from reaping the potential benefits of the IPO. The IPO gives many people who were influential and hard-working in the open source community the opportunity to gain something for all of their hard work. Other people are making money off of Linux, who not the people who helped make it what it is today?
LK
Re:Why I am mad. (Score:2)
This isn't a wise-ass suggestion: Amazon.com went up tremendously on its first day, but if you had bought & held, even with the 30-40% drop it's taken recently you are still making well above-market returns. A quick look at the chart shows that you would have made about 1000% (yes, one thousand percent) if you bought the stock any time in July, 1997 and held it until now. Two years folks.
Another thing to keep in perspective. Don't shed a tear about missing Red Hat. There will be many, many other good investment opportunities along any minute, probably many of them Linux and/or open source related. The opportunities aren't going to dry up and stop coming. Some day, it may be YOUR company going public!
Re:Not A US Citizen? You do have A Chance. (Score:1)
If you are a foreign resident; they are concerned that your country might have a regulation that may prevent them to sollicit business there. However, most countries actually have no such rule, it's just a cover-your-ass measure. If you are a foreign resident, you might want to try to get a statement attesting that there is no such law from the regulatory body of your own country, and fax it to Henri Carter, Vice President of the Compliance Department of E*Trade Securities Inc. at 650 331 6806
Well, it that doesn't help, take the plane to the US, and submit a change of address: You become a resident the day you arrive there. And if you spent all your money on your E*Trade account for the IPO, with nothing left for the plane ticket, you may also skip the bit about the plane.
Good luck.
More sour grapes whining from another loser (Score:1)
So, Red Hat seems like such a nice boy. I've bought their trinkets before, and I was willing to throw at them some money I don't need, and hold a couple hundred shares for the long term, despite some qualms about their business plan.
Sure, there's a lingering thought of maybe becoming insanely rich, but ultimately that's not why I came to the party. Fudging the form would have been easy.
Ah well. This means I don't have to find a nice way of telling my parents, "No, I won't buy shares with your money."
I'm left with the impression that the people who play the game generally want people who are willing to play the same way, possibly because it makes the game more predictable.
Not sure if I'm going to keep the e*trade account. Their interface doesn't thrill me. (First-impression gripes are: heavy reliance on javascript, and 6-char passwords.)
If this was planned, they're playing with fire! (Score:1)
Computer Experience
Computer Usage Objectives
Affiliations
RH IPO brings out the capitalist in all of us (Score:1)
I have to agree with ETrade. In fact, I think that a big problem with the market is that there are too many people trading that do not know what they are doing. Almost all
Besides, just because you can not get in on the IPO does not mean you can not make money off of it. Getting a standard account is easy, even without experience. I have made money on the market and I have never been in on an IPO.
Finally, I think that anti-corporate thing needs to go. Granted, there are companies that do very bad things (like abuse their power) but this does not mean that corporations are all bad. Who made the parts in your computer? If it wasn't for a corporation we would not have any of the things we love today. I love programming and have written free code and code to be purchased. I need to make a living and I think that it is great that I can put food on the table by doing what I love. That is what America is all about. I know that this is an unpopular view but business and software advancement often go together. Everyone needs to get paid and if the choice is write free software and starve or write corporate code and eat, I think that most people will sign up at corporate coders 'r us. This doesn't mean give up free software but everything has a place. Even
We're not stupid. (Score:2)
--
bah (Score:1)
Re:To be fair to E*Trade... and savvy investors... (Score:1)
To be fair to E*Trade (Score:4)
I mean, everyone seems to have the impression that an IPO like RedHat just can't lose. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. Look at what happened to MP3.Com (ticker symbol MPPP); they've been in a tailspin since the day their stock started trading.
Very few of us /.'ers qualify as even remotely savvy investors, so I can see E*Trade taking steps to protect us. It's like telling your boss that he probably shouldn't have "pre$ident" as his password. He might not like having a more difficult to remember password, but you and I both know that its for his own good and for the security of the entire company.
So, give E*Trade a break. We geeks like to think we know everything, but this is an area where a lot of us are pretty much lost.
Besides, I think DSCM is a better investment right now. =)
----
The real reason to write open source (Score:1)
I read these articles and see guys scraping together acouple thousand dollars to participate, and how hard it was to do this. If you can't afford to lose the money, IPO's are not for you. RedHat should do well, but there are no guarantees.
Re:Prohibition of alcohol (Score:1)
You're taking me too literally. I'm not in favor of prohibition, In fact I like to drink beer, but what I'm saying is that just because something can seem to be a cost saving measure doesn't justify it's being done.
LK
Re:bah (Score:1)
Plus I need a bigger house, when they built mine 90 years ago they built it with insufficient server space, if I can fit 4 servers in my basement I'm doing well.
George
Re:A lack of rationality or greed? (Score:1)
That said, my reasons for wanting to invest in the Red Hat IPO are the same reasons that soldiers during WW I and WW II brought back souveniers from the war -- they wanted something to remind themselves, and others, that they had been there, fought the war, and won.
I wanted a souvenier of the Open Source Software wars ... and I wanted an original. I don't happen to work for Red Hat, so I haven't earned any stock in Red Hat, so the only other way to get it was to buy it, preferably as early as possible. To me it's the difference between collecting first-issue stamps, and collecting mint stamps -- anyone can buy unused stamps at the post office, but there's only a limited number of first-issues for a particular stamp. I wanted first-issue stock in Red Hat, so I could tell stories about it years from now, when no one really remembers the Bad Old Days when Microsoft Ruled the World.
Instead my story will be a different one [slashdot.org], a tale of disappointment, not joy.
PS: I actually did read all of Red Hat's SEC filing ... long before they sent me their invitation to participate in the IPO.
Caution would be a good thing. (Score:1)
Why I am mad. (Score:4)
It is the same reason why I go to Best Buy and buy Red Hat Linux. I have a fast enough connection, I know what I'm doing.. but I still buy the package because I want to support Red Hat.
Now I suddenly have the opportunity to buy Red Hat "before" the general population. I might make some money, I might not. I personally don't care about that aspect of the investment. The investment that I am making is in Red Hat as a company, not the price of a few shares.
I am not upset at Red Hat. I'm am only partially upset with e-trade. The reason? Because their "know your investor" doesn't know their investor. The problem is that a LOT of the investors with this IPO are like me. They want a piece of the pie for the long term, they have money they are willing to lose. And, if you are not willing to lose your money you shouldn't invest in the stock market at all. Thats what banks are for.
--Mark
A lack of rationality or greed? (Score:1)
Rationally, none of you would really go to Vegas, empty out your entire checking account just to let it ride on the Red Hat roulette wheel. And for those of you who've been to Vegas (or invested in AMD), remember what it felt like when you went away from a table significantly poorer than you started. E-Trade's IPO investor requirements aside, if they let go and sell off your organs to buy up RHAT and two, three years from now you have to sell at a significant loss, are you all absolutely sure you can just sit there calmly (while you have creditors harassing you on the phone) saying, "Well, I knew the risks coming in"? It's one thing to sit here and hypothetically rationalize possible losses, and quite another to actually have to live with losing money. Think of RHAT (or any investment) this way: Imagine a bunch of slashdotters broke down your door and stole away $2000 from you. Maybe in the future, they'll be back with $20,000. Maybe not.
Now I'm all for getting rid of barriers to more people investing at all levels--E*Trade's barriers (which apparently aren't even double checked in any way) seem suspect, especially for a company that supposedly caters to the common man. But let me ask how many of you have read the entirety of Red Hat's filing? Yeah, it's pretty boring reading. But if this was not Red Hat would you be so eager to part with your money? Perhaps some of you would, for pure sentimental reasons, and that's fine, although not wise. But I would wager (not a big sum of money, though) that most of you would go over any other company with a fine toothed comb, analyzing how it intends to spend your money.
Finally, I thought the whole point of people giving away their hard work was to benefit the community. Why do any of us feel any entitlement to be in on Red Hat's IPO? You all have invested in Red Hat, with your time, your code and your use of their distro. Yeah, your $2000 can be $2,000,000 the next day. But, obvious monetary boon aside, why should it matter whether you buy their stock or not? We're all part of the linux community and no amount of money can take that away from any of us. Or have we abandoned that in favor of better returns on our stocks? I mean, most of us are cheap. Why are we getting so extravagant with our cash all the sudden? You want Red Hat to recognize your good works? Have them send you a t-shirt.
I read slashdot (Score:3)
Cynical (Score:1)
60+ hours with no overtime. At least you GET a paycheck. In this case the hacks worked for free and are not being allowed to take part in RH's success. All in the name of trying to protect them from themselves.
Makes me mad.
Why do we need E-trade anyway? I have bought stock (not much really) in companies that have had private offerings to employees and customers. Just cut out the middle man, E-Trade and other brokers, and then you will have fewer regs to meet. It could be limited to customers, employees and contributors and then you would know it was being bought by the right people...
Has anyone tried to re-submit? (Score:1)
No problemo, it let me right in and I signed up for 200 shares.
Re:You have got to be kidding (Score:1)
RHAT is more than just the code; it's also the business model, the market, services it provides and so forth. They may be bound by a sense of honor to give back, but the GPL is, essentially, a gift of code -- not a sale which demands a fiscal obligation in return. Perhaps one might obtain a job with RHAT or a similar group, maintaining / improving code, but otherwise...
It'd be vaguely akin to publishing an essay on SlashDot, expressly granting permission for everybody to redistribute without cost-- and then later being irritated at the lack of royalties pouring in. Explicit gifts do not mandate a ROI.
Re:After-the-fact Complaints (Score:2)
I hope we don't have copy-cats....
The preceeding was a big bowl of sarcasm with a pinch of irony added for flavour. You can bet we WON'T have this reaction when one of the establishment acts just like the kids at Columbine did...
As for the RedHat IPO question...make up your mind. Do we want to have ANYONE buy and sell stocks/IPO shares or only those who know what they are doing or who can afford to be fleeced? 60 minutes did a big story about 2 month ago about "Day trading" which seemed to indicate that all of this should be done through an experienced broker. So this guy will angrily complain that E*Trade won't let him in for the RedHat IPO but if they did, he'd complain that they fleeced and inexperienced trader if RedHat bombs. Doesn't look to me like E*Trade can win.
Come on...it's ALL about money. (Score:1)
The ownership is ALREADY there...it's the collective contribution of people who have donated their time and expertise to produce something of quality and value. I've seen it mentioned that this is a significant driving force behind many of those who pariticipate. Other motivating factors include peer recognition, personal satisfaction, and a genuine passion for working with the technology.
And suddenly, just because Red Hat has elected to become a publicly-traded company, it takes a little stock certificate to validate all of this. Go figure.
Re:You have got to be kidding (Score:1)
If you wanted to feel appreciated then you should have added in a clause to your software, something like:
A nice postcard is much better than loosing some cash on a poxy IPO...
Re:? how did he get rejected.? (Score:1)
Re:what I don't get (Score:2)
There is SO much misunderstanding about this whole issue, it's really, really frustrating. And I'm afraid that it's making a lot of people (Red Hat, E*Trade, hackers, users, Slasdot - you name it) look quite bad.
Re:I read slashdot (Score:1)
Although I rather like the idea of a slashdot poll on your opinions. How 'bout:
POLL: The author of the Salon piece is:
[ ] dumb
[ ] clueless
[ ] a tad clueful
[ ] profoundly confused
[ ] in touch with the essential zeitgeist of the age
[ ] Jar Jar must die!
Re:To be fair to E*Trade... and savvy investors... (Score:1)
Erm, if it's my money, how is anyone else qualified to tell me what I can afford or how I'm allowed to spend it?
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Re:I read slashdot (Score:1)
Re:All this inane bitching is senseless. (Score:1)
> substantially below $200k and a liquid net
> worth way under $1M must be lying about buying
> IPOs at E-Trade..
>
> Where did you get these figures?!?!?
Indeed, it is possible that people who are getting in are lying about their assets. The point of accreditation is to assist the fund-raising entity, in this case Red Hat in covering their asses, obviating the possibility of lawsuits in the case that the stock tanks and investors lose lots of money.
Those figures come from SEC regs. My company is doing a private placement right now. We had to include in the deal a clause that the investor agrees to acknowledging their accreditation as a speculative investor.
Re:The road to hell is painted with Arcspacs. (Score:1)
A CORPORATION IS A LIVING ENTITY, LIVING IN PERPETUITY, BUT WITHOUT A HEART!!!!!!gj2@
Re:To be fair to E*Trade (Score:2)
- Boss, boss, my computer is gone!
- Not to worry: Some "slashdaughters" were here and removed it for safety reasons. They said something about not allowing people with very little computer experience and not a whole lot of reference manuals access to Pentium III-class machinery. You still get to keep your cellular phone, though, because one of them swore something like "cntrnlinxont".
Had Enough! (Score:1)
Re:Facile analyses (Score:1)
Do you know of any companies that will give you an auto loan and not require you to have insurance? If not, it sounds like a definite market failure to me.
Thank you RH (Score:2)
I sent both these messages to postmaster at both E*Trade and Red Hat and I would have expected that atleast Red Hat would be sensible enough to actually respond to their postmaster mail. I'm glad to say though that Red Hat DID reply today, but only after I threatened to block their computers from sending any messages to my computers.
Both E*Trade and Red Hat has expressed how sorry they are and assured me that I won't receive any such messages in the future, so they're safe. For now. But I'd still like to point a finger in Red Hats direction. Sending spam is one thing, I get enough spam so one mail more is no big problem, but not answering the postmaster mail, or answering a week after having received the message.. That's a whole other story.
anyone care to share their answers? (Score:1)
eligibility questionare care to share their
responses? I'm especially curious about what
successful answers to III B and III C are. What
they want to see seems obvious to me, but I've
been wrong before.
-john.
Real Investing (Score:1)
How about all of you programmers with no to little knowledge of investing, low incomes, and low savings, invest safely for your future instead of trying to get a quick buck.
E*TRADE is trying to SAVE YOUR BUTT and theirs. The company (RHAT) plans to begin LOSING money...sure, it's an IPO, and everybody thinks it will go up, but it COULD TANK. Then who's going to be pissed off at E*TRADE and the SEC for these profiles, huh? That'll be all we need, programmers who are broker than broke coding open source for free.
How about this - the gentleman in the article didn't manage to scrape up enough cash for just 100 shares, he's hoping to get 200. Well, take that money, and invest in a DRiP. Pick a big company, say Coca-Cola. Watch that interest compound...watch your savings grow...this is a time tested proven way to build wealth. Not a quick IPO frenzy (look at MPPP and how high it went, and how it's come back down)...even consider an S&P500 index fund...
I highly suggest all you educated programmers but uneducated investors spend some time at www.fool.com. If an opportunity like this arises again, you won't make the broker, the company to IPO, and yourselves look so ridiculous.
(No, I do not work nor have any relatives work at the Fool)
Re:This is not about Money ( ! AMEN!) (Score:1)
When it's all said and done, I think that Red Hat is an EXTREMELY risky stock to get involved in. Any stock that attracts a large amount of non-saavy investors is ripe for market-maker manipulation. I love Linux, I really like Red Hat, but I'm going to stay away from the stock like the plague.
With an IPO, you'll have to buy a minimum amount of shares (let's say 100). At an IPO price of 10-14 dollars (my guess), you'll be paying at least a thousand dollars for your wall hanging.
Do it if you want, but only if you're prepared to lose it all.
Re:what I don't get (Score:2)
he offer these people got was to buy shares at the IPO price not at what ever the open market price is when public trading starts. This almost garuntees a hefty profit if those shares are sold on the first day or so (its very typical for an IPO share to shoot up in the first day and then fall in the following week or so to a more stable price) Even if they did not sell right away (and assuming the stock trends upwards over the long term) they stand to make more money than if they bought on the open market.
Re:Why be mad? (Score:2)
The Red Hat IPO issue is (just one) place where these two economies come violently into conflict.
That's not how they picked them... (Score:1)
> letter to the lead coder on each of their
> various packages seems the most reasonable to
> me.
Nope. I am lead coder of a project, but unless MegaZeux is one of their packages (it's not), that can't be it.
Not to mention that I got a second copy of the IPO letter at my school address, which is (as far as I know) only associated with a single entry in the Bugzilla database...
---
Re:I read slashdot (Score:1)
Re:WHAT A LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!1 (Score:1)
Re:Remember Atlanta.... (Score:1)
This had to have been planned. (Score:1)
The stock will, of course, shoot straight up. Not becuase investors like RedHat, not because they like OSS, but because the people on the "inside" of the company have lots of faith in it. It would be very illegal for RedHat employees to create a frenzy like this during the Pre-IPO quiet period, so RedHat managed to create all sorts of press without breaking those rules. Hats off to them, they're going to be rich.
RedHat is using the
Myself, I did get the EMail. I know where my EMail address was harvested from, it wasn't hard to figure that out. I can't participate because I'm Canadian, though. Even though Canada and the US both signed the NAFTA that makes my exclusion illegal. Oh, well, I'm not going to complain, because that will simply reward RedHat and ETrade for this sham.
Re:So I pay off my load a little later.... (Score:1)
And I believe the interest rate is actually even lower than 6%. When it's accruing, that is.
The government has given students an excellent deal to get them through college. I appreciate it and certainly plan to pay the loan off as my part to ensure others get the same opportunities I've had. But I'm still a good 5 years from finishing my PhD, and losing $3k isn't going to make a heck of a lot of impact on my post-graduation finances.
Re:Selective protections. (Score:1)
I do have credit cards, and I use them often. I also pay the balance in full every month. It's really not that hard.
Re:Email Red Hat (Score:2)
This sense of entitlement is appalling. If you didn't want it to be possible for someone else to take your work and make money off of it, then you should not have given them explicit permission to do so by using an open source license on your contribution! How hard is that to grasp? Red Hat owes you nothing, because they are only doing exactly what you expressly told them they were allowed to do.
It's a very nice gesture for them to have extended this offer, and it's too bad that some people aren't allowed to participate because of factors outside of Red Hat's control. But the way so many of you are acting like something you deserve has been taken from you is just sickening. Grow up.
I would think that hackers would have a better understanding of how this stuff works: if you want to play a game, first you need to understand the rules.
E*Trade has rules, and the SEC has rules, and apparently most of you weren't even aware that they existed. That should be a pretty strong indication that you don't know enough about this game to play. Whine all you like about how this should be your decision, not E*Trade's and not the SEC's, and that you should be allowed to do any stupid thing you want, but the bottom line is, it's not your decision, and there's nothing you can do about it this week. (If you like, campaign to get the SEC's rules changed. Good luck.) You're shouting at the wind, here, people. These rules have existed for a long, long time, and they're not Red Hat's fault.
Perhaps if you do some research, and actually understand the rules of this game, you'll still be able to get in on the deal. Perhaps you'll even be able to do so without breaking any laws. You certainly won't be able to do so without risk -- nobody can. But no, whining on Slashdot like spoiled children because someone didn't make it even easier for you is less hassle.
Red Hat tried to do something nice (out of generosity, not debt), and you're beating them up for it. When someone gives you a gift that, for whatever reason, you can't use, you're supposed to thank them anyway, not start screaming.
Re:The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Score:1)
This IPO suitability is similar to the credit card companies in my view.
If you blow all your money, whether through a credit card or even an IPO two things can happen:
1) You pay.... and now you have no money. This could lead towards you going on wellfare = drain on sciety.
2) You do not pay.... screws up your credit rating, AND causes rates to increase for everyone else who does pay their debts.
While this may be stretching things a bit, you can see how all of these decisions *can* affect society. The motorcycle driver was also proven to possibly do the same.
So do you regulate all these things?
What is the limit?
I guess they are doing pretty well right now. I do not think my life has been inconvenienced too much by regulating bodies trying to protect me from myself. But it can be annoying at times (for instance, social security), and I am not in favor of more regulations.
Is not it a bit odd.. (Score:1)
Apparently Linux hacking pays well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Facile analyses (Score:1)
It would be just fine if insurance companies weren't constantly scamming us and getting away with it. I'm all for mandatory insurance. Otherwise I could get badly injured by some moron who doesn't have, and never will have any money to pay for my medical expenses. The real problem is that they don't regulate insurance companies well enough. These people are taking our money and we have to give it to them by law. We should have a lot more say in how much we give them.
Re:Intriguing Aspect of Open Source Development (Score:1)
Holy shit, I never thought of it that way. Usually the most I can ever do to influence the value of some stock is to fill out some stupid voting form regarding some obscure business issues. Taking an active role in making the product (e.g. Linux) more attractive, and thereby possibly increasing sales (and therefore profits) is really a new power.
But one thing to keep in mind is this: Linux != Redhat. Redhat is just a business that packages Linux. Their profits are obviously related to the quality and popularity of Linux somewhat, but are also related to how many people they hire to stuff CDs into cardboard boxes, talking to stores to get their boxes on shelves, and a million other mundane business things and management decisions that are not within the control of the Open Source hackers. Putting your sweat and tears into making Linux better still isn't quite the same as working unpaid overtime as a Redhat employee.
The error here is that the software is not what is being auctioned off -- it's a business plan. Yes, there's a relationship, but it's not quite the same thing. It's quite within the realm of possibility that Linux could prosper wildly while Redhat goes belly-up at the same time.
Still, it sucks that people are being protected from themselves. And it is indeed a very interesting (and exciting!) idea that investors may be able to take direct action to improve the saleability of the products sold by the companies they buy into. It's almost enough to make me think the world might someday turn into a better place.
---
Have a sloppy night.
Re:Has anyone tried to re-submit? (Score:1)
>stock - this time describing my net worth and trading experience... er... more accuratly.
>No problemo, it let me right in and I signed up for 200 shares.
Where are you filling out this form. The only one I can find is explicitly labeled as a sample, just below "Note: E*TRADE expects to begin accepting indications of interest in this offering in early to mid August, 1999."
Chris
I am confused (Score:1)
"We're giving them an opportunity to answer [the questionnaire] again," Saxon said. "Maybe they're not giving themselves enough credit."
"In no uncertain terms, he proceeded to tell me that ETrade did not do background checks, would not attempt to dicover if I lied, and implied that if I thought about it, and was willing to lie, I could fill out the form in such a way that it would accept me," Sparger said.
I just don't understand. Do you have some sort of objection to filling out the form again? Did you not know about this? It seems very straight forward to me. If you did not know about this then you have a valid reason to be upset. If you did know about this and chose to write the article anyway then you are a jerk for not speaking the truth.
Re:The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Score:1)
Re:You have got to be kidding (Score:1)
The Red Hat IPO troubles do not "gnaw at us all." In fact, I find it very amusing.
Re:I read slashdot (Score:1)
I made a simple statement that ETrade and Redhat are not violating the GPL - The GPL can be considered your contract with RedHat.
As I said, if you want to make money from your code then go-ahead, but don't moan when someone else makes a buck from your GPL'd code...
Re:This is how Wall Street works. (Score:1)
Bah. "Ordinary" people like myself (and I'm not exactly in a high tax bracket, mind you -- being a grad student and all) can still profit on the market. I've placed some bets that turned out pretty well, and that's w/o IPOs, Street connections of any kind, "insider" data, and so forth. I certainly haven't been "fleeced" as you suggest. Perhaps that's because a) I *don't* trade like a madman, racking up the fees and taxes, and b) I don't go for unstable issues or particularly small companies. I'm not sure that the local gov't needs my funds in bonds, anyway, when it's been spending its time debating what the state country-style dance should be, or we keep building stadia that the citizens repeatedly reject. <sigh>.
Arguably, the companies I choose give back to the world through what they build or what services they offer... it's not like I could pick random John Q. Publics in my hometown and ask them to build a fully-functional jumbo jet, or sell refreshments worldwide, or develop life-saving drugs. Are the businesses driven by profit? Sure. But that's *doing* far more than "altruists" *wishing*, and people starting businesses risk far, far more than the consumers who live off their success.
Wishing would be nice, but ya wouldn't expect success. In the case of RHAT, it takes ability to achieve such a high degree of market penetration and branding that novices refer to "Linux 6.0" or so forth. Could you or I do that? More to the point, *do* we do that?
If a day-trader loses his house, that's his own damn fault. Nobody's forcing people to watch the spread and scramble to make dimes per share, hoping for some bizarre economy of scale to save themselves from the fees while in pursuit of the "easy money"; instead, they could -- and very likely should -- try for the long-term investment, unless they need the money *soon* (in which case they probably shouldn't be gambling). And you don't need to be in a mystical IPO either to gain; nor do you need to go through E-Trade, particularly if your bank provides such services or is partnered with a company that does...
Takeover unlikely (Score:1)
Eerie (Score:1)
Well, I wasn't going to do that bit about the talking head and the helmet, since I'm not familiar with that parable.
WRT secondary consquences, above: *every*thing has secondary consequences. You cannot live with affecting other people. Either you have the freedom to make your own decisions (increasing financial and sometimes physical risk to others) or we are in Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands," were we are protected-from-ourselves to death.
WRT lawuits: anyone sues over anything. Most lawsuits are judged frivolous. And it would be simple to document everything in such a way that it would be difficult for a lawsuit to succeed-- an affidavit signed by novice investors swearing they know what the hell they are doing would go a long way (though, I admit, not reduce the risk of lawsuit to zero).
No. The argument that we are being protected from ourselves is patronizing and wrong-headed. Plus, I don't think that is their reasoning; essentially, we are being informed that the stock market is a club, and we are not full members, and cannot enjoy member benefits.
E-trade did him a favour. (Score:2)
Redhat's stock value stands a good chance of getting virtually WIPED out when the net stock bubble bursts dragging all tech stocks into the
dust. Amazon, ebay etc cannot continue to be valued this highly with no profits forever.
When they go down they'll go down hard - a realistic valuation of most net stocks is roughly 1/30 of current value. This could well happen shortly after the Redhat IPO.
If you really want to buy RH, I suggest buying some then, when it's nice and cheap.
Re:Come on...it's ALL about money. (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be great to say, "I own part of that company"? And yes, I suspect many of us will end up buying Red Hat stock whether we get it pre-IPO or not --- if only because we've already got the accounts on etrade. But the investment strikes me, at least, as far riskier if I buy in the first rush than if I pre-own.
But the reason for the finger-pointing isn't about money. I'd still point out the Red Hat stock even if I had to admit I'd lost a couple of thousand dollars on the stock. I'd try to explain how cool it was I managed to acquire stock in the company in the first place -- that I took part in a huge net-wide project to create killer software, and that when Red Hat finally made it big based on that collaborative effort, they made us all part of it. Not because they had to, but because they were participating in a radical new thing, a hacker gift-economy, where money isn't as important as respect and community.
Re:E-TRADE CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT (Score:2)
Re:To be fair to E*Trade... and savvy investors... (Score:2)
That's very little. Perhaps you don't realize that there are over 150 million jobs in the US, putting the Internet's share at under 1%. Just the oil industry (BP Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Shell, etc.) generates a lot more than 300 billion in revenue, not to mention the rest of the non-Internet marketplace.
If they do not understand where we are going and do not line up the people (hackers) that are in a good position to understand what is going to work and what will not and purhaps make lots of money along the way. Then they are going to be that online trading house that failed in the 90's that no one can quite remember the name of.
The problem is that these "hackers" do not have a clue as to how the stock market works. Just because you can code C does not make you qualified to spend money that you cannot afford on a risky IPO that may or may not go up.
Perhaps you should learn about securities laws... (Score:2)
That said, I don't believe that the guys here wanting to get in on the IPO will be into short-selling. I don't believe that the E-Trade questionnaire achieves its purpose of identifying stable potential investors.
BTW - I didn't get The Letter, and I wouldn't have been able to use it anyway - I'm not a U.S. resident...
This is not about Money (Score:2)
This is about Redhat, a coorporation that rewards people for helping them. I don't know about you, but I want to be apart of that. I would like to say that I have more than a passing interest in the company.
I want to be an original owner in RedHat, get their official earing's report, going to stockholders meetings, and all the other things that go along with being a stockholder.
RedHat has done a lot for us, and if RedHat has community share holders that will be better for them and us.
geach
Re:To be fair to E*Trade... and savvy investors... (Score:2)
On your point about being fair to E*Trade, I agree. They just don't understand the situation. If they are going to handle it, however, they need to learn fast!
Re:To be fair to E*Trade (Score:2)
Affiliations - your mom can't work for Goldman Sachs. That wouldn't be fair, now would it?
And, if you said that capital preservation was your investment style, then of course an IPO is a bad idea.
As far as net worth, etc, goes - I agree. They ask all this and accept / reject before they even know how many shares you're interested in.
However, posting the requirements would be kinda silly. "Your yearly income must be above X" (ok, click "X") "And your liquid assets must be at least "Y" (ok, click "Y")...
Re:To be fair to E*Trade (Score:2)
BeOS are doing a bit better, but not much. They started at $6, rose to $8.75, and are now down to $6.25. In other words, although the scale is somewhat smaller, they're barely over where they started, and don't look to be heading in an upwards direction any time soon.
Those who invest in this IPO for the money might win out, but there again, they might not. A lot of tech and internet stocks have apparently been on a downward trend, lately. If that keeps up, Red Hat are likely to see their shares fall in value, until things pick up.
Those investing to support Red Hat, to have a share in the company, or to invest over the long term won't necessarily care about this. Why should they? If money, now, isn't a factor in their decision-making, then what that factor is doing isn't going to be relevent, by definition.
Re:To be fair to E*Trade (Score:2)
True, except they are also rejecting people who do have investment experience, and plenty of liquid cash.
Their sham of a "financial questionnaire" only asked about my income, and how much liquid cash I have. Their sham of a "financial questionnaire" did not ask if I carry a mortgage, or if I carry a credit card debt. You cannot obtain a financial profile of anyone without having BOTH their assets and liabilities, and E*trade's phony financial questionaire only asks about the assets.
Additionally they didn't even ask how many shares I wanted to buy, before rejecting me. They don't even know how much money you would like to spend, before concluding that you do not qualify.
It's a scam.
--
Re:The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Score:2)
Assume that you do get into an accident...perhaps while ignoring the speed limit. The emergency services people have to race to the scene to attempt to save your life. They rush you to the hospital and put you on life support. And you then spend the next 6 months having some nurses aid wipe your ass because you're paralyzed from the neck down. Of course, this extra cost drives up auto insurance rates for us all. Not to mention snarling traffic and forcing many people to sit in traffic jams while your life is being saved.
Now, personally, I'd rather just let you die on the street for being so stupid. Some peole's live are really meant to be a warning to others. But that isn't how our society works. You have many rights...and you also have some duties and some responsibilities.
The SEC, not E*Trade or RedHat, make the rules. If you don't like them then please write the SEC and your congressman and complain. Notably, the rules were formed because many people have been harmed by IPO's. An IPO is a great source of potential fraud, for example.
Now, I happen to work for a broker-dealer, so I can't take part in this or any IPO.
Intriguing Aspect of Open Source Development (Score:3)
Wow.
Open Source Economics [doxpara.com] takes a whole new turn...
I'll have to integrate this stuff into that essay-cum-Linuxworld-Presentation. A major point I've been arguing is that those who suffer the direct effects of inferior software are more likely to create the fixes for various shortcomings than a body only indirectly connected to the financial pain. Almost all companies have a serious monetary stake in the stable operations of their computer software, and a growing number have realized that such a mission critical part of their business demands the elimination of propietary risks.
In the age of UCITA, open code may be the only thing you can trust. Buying software from companies that support false advertising, remote killswitches, and censorship is akin to hiring Hannibal Lector as your person plastic surgeon--or Master Chef.
Relevance? Consider the financial impact of Open Source on investors. Want your stock to do better? See a specific area of weakness that you percieve is reducing the value of your stock? Fix it. Yourself.
The amount of people funding OSS projects is about to increase...substantially. Fascinating.
See you at LinuxWorld!
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
http://www.doxpara.com
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
After-the-fact Complaints (Score:3)
cjs
Re:To be fair to E*Trade... and savvy investors... (Score:3)
Experienced traders know that the greatest impact on the stock market is things like the labor report that caused the market to go down significantly yesterday. RedHat may be doing just incredibly awesome, but what if Saddam Hussein decides to invade Iran the day after RedHat IPOs? Do you realize that this could cause ALL US stocks to go down, even RedHat?
Someone who has to "scrape together" $1200 ($1000 of which was to be used to pay back debt!) should not be investing that money in the stock market, even in a "sure thing" IPO.
On the other hand, I do not support what E*Trade was doing. I think that if the author wanted to blow his entire life savings, they should have let him.
If you want to invest in the market and have that kind of money, you should be starting out small, by investing $50/month in a mutual fund (Fidelity has Tech-oriented funds).
Re:The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Score:2)
Of course, forcing someone to telecommute would be rediculous, but raising the price of gasoline would have a similar effect and would be akin to the helmet thing. Both are examples of people not taking the full economic consequences of their actions (medical bills and cleaning brain off the highway in one case, pot hole repair and the Gulf War in the other). If you raised the cost of gasoline to $7 per gallon, you can bet that more people would telecommute and cities would become a lot more crowded. Urban sprawl is subsidized quite heavily here in the US; it's not just our "love of big open spaces", as many people who don't know better say.
To my knowledge, you just get fined for not wearing a helmet or seatbelt. I don't think they throw you in jail. It's therefore essentially the same as a tax on people who don't wear helmets or seatbelts.
You didn't mention the wife, though. Would she have escaped with only minor injuries if she hadn't had a helmet on? Just because it cost a lot doesn't mean that it wouldn't have cost more if they hadn't been wearing helmets.
Entitlement culture, downfall of any society (Score:2)
attitude of many of the posters that somehow they are entitled to some preferential treatement.
Frankly I am appalled that
crushed at concerts and soccer games. It's not any different. People at the back push and push
because by some happenstance, they are caught in the back of the bus. There's a lot of bad karma
that comes with this kind of selfishness.
Why should anyone be allowed to invest money in RH if they don't want you too? Quite frankly,
if RH wanted to, it could allow people to purchase stock in the company before any of this IPO thing
happened. I didn't see too many people clamoring for shares at RH's door. Now at the end of the
rainbow, the masses come a-knocking? Or was it that it was too risky to invest before?
Why didn't they do this before the announced IPO? Although I don't know the reason, I would
speculate that they didn't want to dilute the shares for their current investors and employees.
These investors and employees took the risk, and now are seeing if the market will reward them.
However, had they allowed small, unaffiliated investors into the company before (and I'm sure
they have), with SEC rules regarding unregistered securities, they would have to pass a similar
investor test that E-trade is giving now. There is really no difference.
The best way to think of un-affiliated IPO shares is like a sweepstakes where the prize is unknown.
Some people get the chance to buy, some people don't. It's just the hand you are dealt.
For those who say they believe in the company, just buy some market shares about 2-months after
the IPO when the price dips. Chances are you'll get the same result w/o all the heartache.
To those that want to make a quick buck, start your own company. Don't try and ride the
coat-tails. What you say that's too hard? Well that's part of the risk-reward equation.
Entitlement culture is just a manifestation of the emotion of envy. Do you envy your next-door
neighbor because they have a new K7-600MHz PC? Do you envy people who get food stamps because
they don't have to earn their food? Do you envy a winner of a scholarship? Perhaps you will be one
of the rich people someday who will insist that the US govt should pay you social security
benefits because you are entitled to it even though you know the poor widow/widower down
the street could use the money more than you.
Or maybe you envy Linus and the attention that he gets for Linux even though there are many people
who work on it? What ever happened to long term thinking? If the RH IPO succeeds, then the
chances are better for everyone else that follows. In fact, the companies who dominate the industry
rarely are the first ones. Most of the time the leaders just end up with lots of arrows in the back.
Don't envy, we can be better than that.
Okay, time for a bit of a vent... (Score:2)
My guess is the explanation that they sent the letter to the lead coder on each of their various packages seems the most reasonable to me.
That's quite a kick in the balls though to the various people (including myeslf, this whole post is very selfishly motivated) who have contributed innumerable patches, bug fixes, suggestions, and new features to many of those various packages. Pushing RedHat at various corporations, submiting bugs to them on their RPMS, etc...
RedHat could've done a better job of the process I think. I'm kind of irratated that I didn't end up on the list simply because none of the software I've written has ended up in their distribution, or the code has since been removed. (Used to have a few patches in the kernel five or six years ago, but its long since gone...)
They also should've thought of this issue of investment experience before they filed for the IPO. They could've done a private placement to the invitees, and then files for the IPO.
That's Why There's Rules (Score:4)
Now I'll be the first to admit that most of my investment is tied up in shares of the company I work for. (A double no-no since I already work here, I should diversify into other investments in case the company has a downturn and I not only lose my stock investment, but my job as well). But I am taking a calculated gamble knowing that I have invested no more than I can afford to lose. If my stock ends up worth $0, it will hurt, but I won't be losing my whole life's savings and it won't jeopardize my ability to service my debt load (which is just my mortgage). You've got to take a hard look at this stuff and be willing to plop down your money knowing there is a chance you might lose a lot of it.