Talk:Private placement

Neutrality of the Article is Disputed

There is frequent mention of "View www.PPM.net, leaders in private placement, for more." The link is to a commercial blog website and is not from a neutral 3rd party.

To make the notion that "ppm.net,leaders in private placement" is an assumption that is not based on any factual evidence to support such claim herein.

I have written 100+ page PPM docs in the hedge fund industry and this article is commercially biased and is poorly written.

I would STRIKE out (remove) all commercial advertising (referenced to PPM.net), and base the article on SEC rules 504, 505 and 506 of Regulation D. --Stockjock5 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this - I have removed all the links to ppm.net, as I feel they are inappropriate. However, there seems to be a wider problem of copyright violation here. I have identified this, and an editor below gave two links which where/are copyright violations. --Kateshortforbob 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try and look at this further later this evening. --Kateshortforbob 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

edit:

"Private placements offer "units", where a "unit" is (again, typically) composed of one common share and one-half or one warrant" is not an "always true" statement, nor "typical."

Shares in private companies can offer units, stock, warrants, rights, or the similar, but that does not mean EVERY PPM will offer units or stock and warrants. In my experience in reading and writing PPM docs, the most "common" scenario I have seen is the issuance of stock. --Stockjock5 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted source material?

It appears that this entry copies, verbatim, allegedly copyrighted information found at http://www.regdresources.com/index.cfm?text=3 and/or http://www.youngentrepreneur.com/forum/f2-general-business/regulation-d-offerings-28015.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompsos (talk • contribs) 14:31, February 12, 2008

www.PPMemo.com.

Many companies have been copying their information, including the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.57.50 (talk • contribs) 15:07, September 14, 2008

PIPE: a category of its own

PIPEs are distinct enough in nature and a big enough market that they deserve their own listing, separate from "private placement."

As a student in Finance I am compelled to agree with the former poster - that "PIPE" deserves to have its own slated and distinct listing. There is an entire chapter in my course text dedicated to PIPE's alone.

Info from anonymous user

On March 30, 2007, and anonymous editor added this link:

• Relaxing the Ban: It's Time to Allow General Solicitation and Advertising in Exempt Offerings

I removed the link, but I'm putting it here for consideration. --SueHay 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Towards the end of this article it mentions "we provide our clients" in the section below. I assume Wikipedia doesn't mean its readers, so this should be corrected.

Form D SEC Filing: The Form D is the notification filing that is sent to the SEC in Washington, DC. It notifies the SEC that you are using the Regulation D program and provides them basic information on the company and the offering. It is not an approval document or registration - it is merely a filing that notifies the SEC that you have a Regulation D Offering in place. 3. Marketing: The offering is now ready for marketing to investors. We provide our clients the capability to implement a diversified marketing campaign that involves NASD brokerages, Internet Marketing, and Direct Investor Marketing tactics.

This article is WRONG

There are many gross over-simplifications in this article, even for an encyclopedia intended for a general audience. Worse, there are some clearly incorrect statements. For example: "Private placements can only be sold to certain sophisticated investors. In the U.S. these are called accredited investors ..." Anyone with even a casual understanding of Reg D should know that is not true. Depending on which rule applies, there are dollar limits and/or limits on the number of non-accredited investors, but there is no requirement across the board that every purchaser must be an accredited investor. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I completly agree on this point. As per Rule 502 both Accredited and Non-Accredited investors can participate with certain different rules applicable in both these cases - hotmaildhiraj

What's with all the <strike> stuff?

It looks terrible!

Rewrite 13 june 2009

I have rewritten this article as a stub based on information from the original article and what I have been able to find about the subject. I am by no means an expert in this area; however I have checked every article diff and there appears to be copyright violating and promotional material throughout. There is no version I that I could revert to, knowing for certain that it wasn't a copyright violation. If anyone who has more knowledge/reliable sources to add wants to expand it, that would be great. I am going to put a commented request in the article that external links not be added without discussion on the talk page, and will keep an eye on it, as link spam has been endemic since creation, and there seems to be a persistent addition of one specific link ongoing. --Kateshortforbob 13:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed external commercial link

Just removed a link to a US Private Placement Database that sells a database app and was a spam link (under Wiki rules) in external links section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWalsh (talk • contribs)