Pierre, Which it it?
On a previous post, I responded to your comment on 7-26, regarding your post that 20th Century Ultra was attempting to sell a large block of shares. Your posting #931, was as follows:
> Big sellers in the market. Believe it is Twentieth Century!
> From: Pierre Panet-Raymond
My comment to you then, was that the posting appeared irresponsible and could be misleading as rumor.
You responded on post #1019 as follows:
> I did not appreciate your comment about an irresponsible posting concerning 20th Century. I heard it from a market maker who was asked that morning by his institutional sales department whether he could buy a block of 50,000 shares of PRST and the account was the Ultra fund of 20th century. Don't for a second believe that 20th century has put as much work into Presstek as some of us shorts have. 20th century are momentum players, period.
You NOW state the following on your Aug 28th post #1234:
> Twentieth Century sold entire position in "Q2". Source 13F-Bloomberg
Well which is true - - if any of it? How could they be attempting to sell a large block of shares in Q-3 if they sold it all in Q-2?
You state to David Pace that you are refraining on naming those you have received "confidential information" from, stating you have developed many confidential contacts and sources - including Market Makers etc.
Well, I would like to know how Ultra could have attempted to place a sell order with your "MM friend" on July 26th, if they had sold all of their position in Q-2 as you allege? According to your recent post, they did not own the stock in Q-3. My call to 20th Century Friday about 6:00pm, regarding the answer to a total sale by Ultra of all shares, was responded to as follows...."rubbish and rumor". I am still waiting to confirm with them and was provided a name to call, not available until Tuesday. I will post what I find out.
Edgar does not show the 2-Q Ultra filing at this time.
I actually doubted that Ultra would still be holding in Q-3. They should have had the sense to cash in at 150+ after a 25% drop from peak, if only as a obligation to their shareholders . If they were holding the stock 7-26, they would have been stupid to sell at those low prices.
If MM's were feeding you incorrect information on 7-26, you need to re-examine your sources of information and confirm before you posted that type of "inside information". In your position, (You are a broker aren't you?)that could leave you potentialy liable to someone that sold shares in the 50's based on your non-factual comment,
especially if you or friends (clients)profit.
If your intent was to convert nervous PRST shareholders reading this thread to sell, then I again state you are irresponsible and self serving, as it is known your position is short. Your posts have been interesting to read in the past, however, that type of conflicting information could shoot your credibility on this thread. Would like to hear your explanation, if any.
Thanks,
Neil |
