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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : ECNC (OTC:BB) - eConnect -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j g cordes who wrote (1151)	8/11/1999 3:11:00 PM
From: LORD ERNIE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18222

No trades at all for the last thirty (dirty) minutes you better buy an other 100 shares ;-)

To: j g cordes who wrote (1151)	8/11/1999 3:30:00 PM
From: steveK.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18222

Actually,let me correct myself re:the countermove I posted on a little earlier.The countermove itself was probably only half of the original 1:00EST move.In other words,the first move(around 1:00,for around 100,000 to 150,000 shrares)is countered(rather quickly)by a countermove of around 50,000 to 75,000 shares.In effect,neutralizing the original move.That's basically all it really takes.Keep in mind,all things being equal(of course they really never are,we are talking hypothetically here)it basically takes three buys to one sell to move a stock price north.Again,much of this theory(no one has ever really established this as fact)depends on everything being as close to equal as possible.For example,inventories of shares held by MM's.Some MM's will invariably(due to other factors,some nefarious,some harmless)have more stock than others.The MM's holding more inventory than others can,to a degree,determine stock activity-and therefore price.To take the example further,if a holder of stock(whether "borrowed" or really owned) was trading exclusively with a large MM in a stock and had decided to short the stock,the holder could leverage/control the stock activity(hence price)to a degree.How much of a degree?Depends on the factors in play(relevant)-the inventories of the MM(or MM's)involved,the size of the traders holdings(again-"borrowed",or real),the price range of the stock for the given periods of time,the overall volume of stock being traded in relation to the time frame,company fundamentals,news and information,runups in price,etc.,etc. Let's not be naive.The price has been manipulated to go south of late.Why?So that someone(s),can financially benefit from this occurance.I'd like to now congratulate them,and see them move on.Enough said there. I like to look here(SI and whatever), and at the trading patterns as much as the next investor,but I believe it's just as important(for me anyways)to remember why I took my positions in ECNC.Long term. This instant gratification obsession that has permeated many stock investers mentality of late will only grow as a negative force if we continue to move in that direction.Many of the inherent checks and balances of the market are already being thrown out of whack or have been altered.In this sense,the internet has been a blessing,yet also a curse.Of course,the natural order of change plays a part as well.Investing has changed,but much of that change is based on our mentality.JMHO OK-enough of me for now. Happy Returns To All- stevek.