SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Euroweb International - NASDAQ: EWEB
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: allen menglin chen who wrote (478)1/30/2000 3:13:00 AM
From: chalu2  Read Replies (2) of 566
 
Let's look at December first. You seem to say that the shares were shorted simultaneously with the "squeeze." The volume outpaces by a heavy magnitude any possible volume that we can attribute to panic short covering by pre-existing owners, the very definition of a "squeeze." A@P says the shorting was done "that day"--i.e., it is spurred by the run up, not the cause of it, as Byron states.

Your own trading indicates a short into a run up, again the opposite of short covering as a result of a squeeze. You didn't buy to cover, you sold short. Your own personal experience shows that Byron has it backwards as to the role of the short interest here. I can find no evidence of a short squeeze powering that late December rally. Can you?

Perhaps it played a role in the January rally, but by then the December rally had already occurred independent of any short squeeze. So why say January's run up is a short squeeze, while December's permits no such argument? Seems to me that Byron is simply wrong.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News