Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony,

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: KevinMark who wrote (61078)	10/22/2000 9:43:10 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) of 122087

"It's funny how they stopped trading when the stock had already lost 65 points, only to allow the institutions to open the stock back up 85 points higher than where it was halted, and then only traded a tenth of the day's actual volume. Please explain that to me! " Are you trying to say that Nasdaq put that fellow up to releasing the fraudulent PR? If not, then what did that incident have to do with the Nasdaq? Does it show up a need for better order handling on the Nasdaq? You betcha. Does it show corruption on the part of the Nasdaq? That's arguable. I was (still am) in favor of cancelling every EMLX trade that occurred that day subsequent to the fraudulent PR and previous to the halt. Others who I respect argued that they shouldn't, and made good arguments why not. I'd expect the same argument went on at Nasdaq HQ while the halt was in force. But I can't see an argument that allowing it to trade under the current rules was corrupt in any way. As far as the gap up after the halt, that was completely natural. That's what happens when people learn that fraudulent bad news is fraudulent. Regards, Barb

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next