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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ruffian who wrote (36661)	7/22/1999 3:05:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Shorting at the close Gourmandier seems right that there was some price manipulation at the close. But the total drop when it fell suddenly at the end was about $4, so the most lost from the sale of 6.9m shares was about $28m. The short sellers [if there really were some and it wasn't just fast moving people all nervous about what to do] were met by buyers who bought the millions the shorts were selling. So, the silly shorts, who then get to buy their allocation of the 6.9m at a $4 lower price, have lost the $4 on the shares they shorted at the close because it will bounce straight back if it was simply a short-caused drop. That will just about match their gain. So the cunning players were those who bought on-market at the close at $56.40. The hot-shot traders should have been sitting lying in wait if they could see that these things were happening. Many of them were! Hence the huge volume. Stuff like that. It's all small beer. A better arrangement might have been an average price for the day, but maybe that isn't how these things are done. A single silly closing price seems a bit arbitrary as the price to pay. Mqurice