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 : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BuzzVA who wrote (24200)	9/28/1999 1:30:00 PM
From: George Dawson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

BuzzVA, I had three ideas about the increased short position: 1. It is interesting that the Greenberg article came out midway during the last short reporting period. I wonder how many shorts do their DD by reading Greenberg? For example, it would take 1600 shorts at 1K shares apiece or 160 shorts at 10K shares apiece (or any combination) to make up the difference from the decreasing short volume from the previous month. That to me does not seem like a large number, given the testimonials to the column we have heard from some. To a certain extent, a trigger for a lot of short selling is a self fulfilling prophecy based on increased supply of shares. 2. Hedging vs. a naked short position - might also seem plausible based on the risk assessment of the impact of 3Q earnings and rate of the ramp up. There has been some concern that the ramp in general might be slower than expected for all FC sales. 3. Naked short position - seems less likely to me based on the fact that it could have been shorted much earlier for greater potential profits. George D.