TPII - Year 2000 (Y2K); Groupware; Client Server Migration 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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TPII - Year 2000 (Y2K); Groupware; Client Server Migration

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: BONZ who wrote (8946)	10/1/1998 1:52:00 PM
From: MB	Read Replies (1) of 10903

This is what I forwarded to John McGee: To: MB From: Black John (Trial Member) Tuesday, Sep 29 1998 4:38AM ET Mr. Mark Valentine and Steve Hicks .. (dba) Dominion and Sovereign have not and will not be getting any shares of CSGI. The rise in the price of CSGI is not due to the above parties converting and moving the stock higher. In fact, the move in the stock is due to the above parties and their previous activities being exposed on Yahoo and short covering by them. Certain MM's that may have helped the Canadian group as well as the above mentioned parties were caught short thinking they were going to be able to convert this week. THEY WERE NOT and WILL NOT GET ANY SHARES. Therefore, they had to cover their shorts. Prior to the Canadian's being exposed on Yahoo many of the large CSGI shareholders where taking there stock out of street name and putting it in 'safe keeping' .... and awaiting them (the Canadians) to be nailed. Although the stock couldn't be shorted by the general public, the MM's could short all they want. Getting the stock out of street name shrinks up the float and puts pressure on the shorts to cover. Since the float is sucked up due to the stock coming off the street holding or taking new short positions caries much risk due to the fact that stock may not be found to cover if the stock starts to run. It is my belief that NITE (Knight Securities) as well as NFSC (National Financial) are the ones who were caught short in CSGI. NFSC was tying to keep the price down just prior to Mr. Hicks and Valentine being exposed on Yahoo. If you check TPII level II you will see that NFSC is also on the offer and keeping the price down similar to what they were doing on CSGI before the investors took charge and implemented a Category 5 short squeeze. As soon as it was clear that the Canadians were short and that chances were good that it was caught in time not to give them any stock... the squeeze was on. As some buying came into the stock as well as the float shrinking due to stock coming out of street name and the Canadians realizing that they probably aren't going to get any cheap stock to cover their shorts with as well as the MM's who helped them such as NITE getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar... the stock was up up and away with massive volume and short covering. For Mr. Valentine or any of his associates to claim they weren't short is not only laughable, but not plausible. Mr. Valentine and his group have let their M.O. be known long before they dealt with TPII or CSGI. In fact, if he claims he is not short then the next question should be why did Champion Financial sue him and accuse him of illegal shorting ... and why is Lone Star (LNST) currently suing him and accusing him of similar activities ? NOT SHORT ? Yea right! I think he is just a bit upset that he got nailed! and CSGI wasn't going to give him the shares to cover his ass and that as soon as the other MM's saw him and NITE trying to cover they pushed the stock up. (please post this on TPII to inform the investors there) - I don't know if TPII has already given Mr. Valentine any shares, but if they have not, a similar strategy could be implemented. These guys are bad news and stink with illegal shorting activities. However, all hope is not lost there are ways to turn the table on them.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next