Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Non-Tech : Ashton Technology (ASTN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Candle stick who wrote (1886)	6/25/1999 7:29:00 AM
From: Keith A Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4443

You know short squeezes always remind me of the scene from "Animal House" where Belushi has his mouth full of mashed potatoes and pretends to be a zit. Kind of funny to watch when it pops.

To: Candle stick who wrote (1886)	6/25/1999 10:07:00 AM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4443

Even Cramer gets it, but not the CSer: "Little Interest in Short Interest By James J. Cramer Every time the short-interest figures come out, I brace myself for a mountain of email about how to use these numbers to make money. So let me pre-empt the mail: You can't. That's right, these numbers cannot make you money. Been there, tried that, failed. I have attempted over the course of the last two decades to make money off these numbers in a variety of ways. I have picked the most shorted stocks and bet that maybe we could get a squeeze (a short squeeze that moves a stock higher as people cover the short). I have shorted the most heavily shorted stocks, betting that something bad will occur (all after doing homework on the fundamentals). I have tracked the stocks with small floats that are heavily shorted to see if the "days to cover" figures might spontaneously cause a rush up if anything good happens. Nothing worked. Nada. First, these numbers are hopelessly incomplete. There is so much trading that is derivative or against convertible bonds or against options or against indices that you are just spinning your wheels on this stuff to get it to work for you. You don't get to see what these shorts might be against. Arbitrage corrupts these figures. The lack of reporting requirements on derivatives, especially off-board derivatives (private trades between brokerage houses and institutions), renders them just plan irrelevant. I also find these numbers virtually useless as an indicator for where the market is going. When I first got in the business, a big short-interest figure meant that the market had to go higher because of all the stock that had to be bought to cover. Then there would be these big decreases in the number of shorts, and nothing would happen -- again because the numbers are so distorted by arbitrage. So why bother to publish them? Beats me.

To: Candle stick who wrote (1886)	6/25/1999 11:11:00 AM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger	Respond to of 4443

ASHTON TECHNOLOGY:ANDUS REUBEN & MAR FILES TO SELL 30,000 SHARES 6/22/99 7:13 FORM 144 FILED AT THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON 06/17/99 REUBEN & MARGARET ANDUS, NO RELATION, OF 2385 LANGHORN-YARDLY RD, LANGHORN, PA 19047, HAS FILED TO SELL 30,000 SHARES OF ASHTON TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC [ASTN] THROUGH PERSHING & CO. CONTACT PHONE (215)-751-1900. The Washington Service reports Form 144 (Proposed Sale of Securities) filings released by the S.E.C. Further information on our services may be obtained by calling (202) 778-1380