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 : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MGV who wrote (14994)	10/4/1999 5:58:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Why not provide links to the posts where I said these things? Prove to everyone you are correct, provide the links, and let people read for themselves. Then certainly your version of events will prove you as perfect as you claim. Time for you to substantiate your claims. Finally, all you talk about is the stock price, nothing about the fundamental businesses involved with these stocks. I stand my conclusion, you don't understand the businesses of the companies you invest in very well. Paul

To: MGV who wrote (14994)	10/4/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

For the record, let me clean up one more lie. To the thread: Thanks guys for the favorable comments. I make many mistakes, and I'll admit them. What I don't like is someone clearly mis-stating the record, in an effort to demean someone. I see enough of that on yahoo. So let's clear up another of mgv's charges: "CLS and FLEX: Regarding Celestica and Flextronics, klemencic advocated a trade shorting CLS and simultaneously going long FLEX. For the record, at the time I was long both CLS and FLEX. He had to reverse his position in 3 trading days to avoid being clocked." Here is the actual economics of the pair trade, from a post at that time. Note that the intention of the trade was to make a quick 15% or so, as the spread between two stocks widened from about 15% to a more normal 30%... This was a short term trade, and was closed at a profit in three days. Hence the interest in a pair trade. I posted on this last Wednesday, when CLS was trading at 38 1/4, while FLEX was trading at 44. The neat thing about a pair trade, is the cash from the short sale pays for the long purchase. Hence a buyer who shorted 2400 shares of CLS at 38.25, could buy 2000 shares of FLEX using the money, without increasing his margin interest. Today the buyer could have closed the FLEX position at 51.00, for a 2000 x (51-44) = $14,000 gain, and closed the CLS position at 38.50 for a $600 loss. The net gain is $13,600 with no capital tied up, and no margin interest expense. Message 9449149 This trade would have made money. In fact, another opportunity to buy FLEX/ short CLS when the two stock prices were less than 10% apart, came up this summer. If the trade was put on again, it could have been closed for another similar profit within several weeks. I wanted to discuss the idea of pair trades on the ECM thread, but mgv trashed the discussion, and almost killed the thread. I don't know why mgv responded so negatively to this idea, except that it recommended shorting a stock he owned. I think he couldn't stand the emotional pain of seeing a short recommendation on one of his favorites, even as the hedging part of a pair trade. I guess he was in love with CLS. I can understand this. But again, why does he post this on many threads, over and over again as part of an attack on my personal investment skill? The trade made the money it was intended to make, in a very short time. Please criticize me for a mistake, not for getting something right. This simply is part of mgv's need to belittle and demean others. I can't say I understand this need. Paul