Visa Ipo
#3
Team Owner
#4
Originally Posted by chinoz
I will... if MA was any indication this should do quite well long-term.
now that we know what is deemed "acceptable valuations" for a credit processor since we know what MA trades at, V will be stuck with limited upside potential. don't get me wrong, V is gonna skyrocket its first couple of days trading. After that, however, it will settle down to par with MA's valuation in terms of PE and forward PE. I would imagine V would trade at a slightly richer multiple though simply due to the fact that they will be seen as "best of breed"
long term though, i definitely agree. both MA and V should be great long term holds as the world shifts from cash to plastic (especially international markets). all of this pending of course that Visa's financials are strong once we finally get to see them haha.
if you can get pre-IPO shares jump on it (pool money with friends and start an investment club to have a better shot at getting these shares (or, of course, have hookups at the underwriters). i'm still trying every avenue but haven't had much success yet and don't anticipate getting any at all haha
#7
Registered but harmless
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 59
Posts: 14,847
Received 1,107 Likes
on
765 Posts
Originally Posted by innocentwinky
i have no idea what this thread is about, do you guys mind explaining it to the noob here.
Trending Topics
#9
Suzuka Master
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SoCal
Age: 49
Posts: 8,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DelawareCLS
Any news on the timing? I had heard Q1 but with the markets the way they are I am expecting them to hold off a bit...
#17
Team Owner
Holy smokes!
Visa raises $17.9 billion, a record for U.S. IPO
Visa raises $17.9 billion, a record for U.S. IPO
The world's largest processor of credit and debit cards sold 406 million shares at $44 apiece to easily eclipse the previous U.S. record IPO of $10.6 billion set by AT&T Wireless eight years ago.
#21
'Cooter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Shitside, Queens
Age: 46
Posts: 11,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
over 40 members of the syndicate
indications in the $60's still
my brother worked on the $22bn Int'l & Com. Bank of China deal last year...said it was insane
indications in the $60's still
my brother worked on the $22bn Int'l & Com. Bank of China deal last year...said it was insane
#23
Team Owner
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/visa-...125556303.html
Visa ‘Intended to Help’ Pornhub and Its Parent Company Monetize Child Porn, Judge Finds in Allowing Case to Move Forward
In a setback for Visa in a case alleging the payment processor is liable for the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek, a federal judge ruled that it was reasonable to conclude that Visa knowingly facilitated the criminal activity.
On Friday, July 29, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California issued a decision in the Fleites v. MindGeek case, denying Visa’s motion to dismiss the claim it violated California’s Unfair Competition Law — which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices — by processing payments for child porn. (A copy of the decision is available at this link.)
In the ruling, Carney held that the plaintiff “adequately alleged” that Visa engaged in a criminal conspiracy with MindGeek to monetize child pornography. Specifically, he wrote, “Visa knew that MindGeek’s websites were teeming with monetized child porn”; that there was a “criminal agreement to financially benefit from child porn that can be inferred from [Visa’s] decision to continue to recognize MindGeek as a merchant despite allegedly knowing that MindGeek monetized a substantial amount of child porn”; and that “the court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn” by “knowingly provid[ing] the tool used to complete the crime.”
“When MindGeek decides to monetize child porn, and Visa decides to continue to allow its payment network to be used for that goal despite knowledge of MindGeek’s monetization of child porn, it is entirely foreseeable that victims of child porn like plaintiff will suffer the harms that plaintiff alleges,” Carney wrote.
In a statement, a Visa spokesperson said: “Visa condemns sex trafficking, sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse materials as repugnant to our values and purpose as a company. This pre-trial ruling is disappointing and mischaracterizes Visa’s role and its policies and practices. Visa will not tolerate the use of our network for illegal activity. We continue to believe that Visa is an improper defendant in this case.”
On Friday, July 29, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California issued a decision in the Fleites v. MindGeek case, denying Visa’s motion to dismiss the claim it violated California’s Unfair Competition Law — which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices — by processing payments for child porn. (A copy of the decision is available at this link.)
In the ruling, Carney held that the plaintiff “adequately alleged” that Visa engaged in a criminal conspiracy with MindGeek to monetize child pornography. Specifically, he wrote, “Visa knew that MindGeek’s websites were teeming with monetized child porn”; that there was a “criminal agreement to financially benefit from child porn that can be inferred from [Visa’s] decision to continue to recognize MindGeek as a merchant despite allegedly knowing that MindGeek monetized a substantial amount of child porn”; and that “the court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn” by “knowingly provid[ing] the tool used to complete the crime.”
“When MindGeek decides to monetize child porn, and Visa decides to continue to allow its payment network to be used for that goal despite knowledge of MindGeek’s monetization of child porn, it is entirely foreseeable that victims of child porn like plaintiff will suffer the harms that plaintiff alleges,” Carney wrote.
In a statement, a Visa spokesperson said: “Visa condemns sex trafficking, sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse materials as repugnant to our values and purpose as a company. This pre-trial ruling is disappointing and mischaracterizes Visa’s role and its policies and practices. Visa will not tolerate the use of our network for illegal activity. We continue to believe that Visa is an improper defendant in this case.”
$209.20
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JediMindTricks
Sports Talk & Fantasy Leagues
35
01-08-2009 11:20 AM
rondog
Money & Investing
10
03-07-2005 10:30 PM
kman156
Sports Talk & Fantasy Leagues
74
04-30-2004 02:05 PM