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.
Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Andy Chen who wrote (10284)10/28/1996 5:31:00 PM
From: Janice Shell   of 58324
 
Andy--

Okay, I'll bite. The SOES Bandits wreak havoc for us as well as for the market makers because they increase volatility in the market. Before you say this, it isn't always bad--if you're on their side. But you're usually not. At least that's been my experience. Normally the effects of their raids are short lived--unless market tone is nasty or the stock's not a popular favorite. My own anecdotal experience with Bandit raids is that they've depressed my portfolio and, not surprisingly, I don't like it.

Even if I believed that all market makers were the spawn of Satan, I've never subscribed to the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You didn't ask, but on the subject of short selling mechanics I agree with you. Barb's got an interesting point: in a sense, shorting ought to create a larger float. Jack's right to say that the number of shares outstanding are what they are. BUT it's also clear that when stock is sold short neither the person from whom it's been borrowed nor the "new owner" can do anything with it--either buy or sell it--until the short (or a proxy for the short) has covered his position. So in real terms the shares shorted are frozen, and so the effective float is reduced. Amazingly metaphysical, all this.

Janice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext