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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (12263)	11/11/1999 12:47:00 AM
From: Scott Wheeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Richard, Right and we agree on that one...my point was (the argument developed in two posts) that early this morning the price jumped from .11 to .14 - 27% - on a 100 share buy. It was only after that happened that we saw some good chunks going between .12 and .14. I don't think that 100 could have been your basic investor, because why would s/he purchase 100 shares, costing more in commission that the buy was worth? If you were really short-covering, why make the price worse (higher) for yourself? And if you were really covering a short, would you not be buying in quantity? If you can agree it was a MM manipulating the price (IMO the best hypothesis), then I submit you have to follow with the why question. Why do that? I don't think short-covering can explain that particular deliberate tape-paint. Now there may be other MMs doing other things - I suppose it's naive to think that all MMs have the same intent at the same time on the same stock! I'm also curious, though - what evidence makes you think the bigger buys were short-coverers? tia, Scott