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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Shorting stocks: Broken stocks - Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lindend who wrote (2398)	7/4/1999 1:10:00 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2506

Is there a historical pattern of how stocks behave after being delisted from the BB and being forced to trade on the pinks? Linden, I'm not sure that the historical pattern matters, because the rules of the game have changed. When you fumigate one place, the insects go somewhere else to breed, and I think that's what will happen with the OTC:BB scam stocks. The scamsters may even find they like the pinks better because, AFAIK, their stocks can't be shorted there. Certainly it's even easier to manipulate prices on the pinks than on the BB. If the pinks are to be the new main home for the scam stocks then, as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results. After witnessing what's happened with NCDR, I've got some questions. First, are you required to cover 100% of the ask for a pink? If so, it seems like it would be wise to keep a decent amount in reserve for the inevitable pump. Not to mention the possibility that the scamsters will post outrageous ask prices for a couple of days to try to flush out some of the shorts. This appears to have already been attempted with NCDR. Second (and I'm not sure anyone can answer this), how does a move to the pinks affect the chances of having shares called in? Finally, does the SEC have any authority to investigate trading in the pinks, or to discipline anyone found to be manipulating the stock? TIA, to anyone who can answer. Mark