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 (57288)	12/28/1999 8:12:00 PM
From: steve mamus	Respond to of 152472

Ruffian, Your posts regarding the market makers over the last several months are fascinating. They are the most interesting of any of the posts I have read by anyone on any of the boards. Please keep them coming. A question - what do the market makers expect the stock to do at split and the week after...I would love to hear your impressions from their point of view (marketmakers fears??) i.e. why can't they sleep at night - can't close short positions prior to parabolic leg up?? Thanks. SWM

To: Ruffian who wrote (57288)	12/28/1999 10:03:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

(Point / counterpoint) Ruffian - I think your posts about the marketmakers and their grand schemes at manipulation are a "crock." I do not mean this to start a big "battle of the carefully crafted insults" here (although -- that is probably a forgone conclusion). I just do not believe this stuff from "Floor_Trader." As you may recall, I have worked as a trader on Wall Street, and these stories just do not make any sense to me. It is possible that things have changed since the last time I was involved in trading on a (so-called) professional level, but -- given everything I know, I interpret things as follows : Floor_Trader (or his associates) are personally long QCOM on the close today, and are fabricating or embellishing a story to try to give QCOM an incremental (tiny) push for about one minute on the opening tomorrow. Jon.

To: Ruffian who wrote (57288)	12/28/1999 10:17:00 PM
From: J Langholtz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

There is a lot of discussion about MMs driving the price lower so they can pick up additional shares at a better price. We are assuming that there is significant demand for the stock and that the MMs are picking up the shares to meet future demand and to cover their short positions. If there is substantial demand you would expect that when the MMs stop bidding ( with the intention of driving the price down) other astute investors would simply bid on the shares that are offered at price x. If there is substantial latent demand, how is it possible to drive prices down without shorting additional shares? - I hope someone can explain this apparent inconsistency. Thanks

To: Ruffian who wrote (57288)	12/28/1999 11:22:00 PM
From: R. Ramesh	Respond to of 152472

The MM's have still failed to cover much of the short QCOM they need. Today's late sell off and rebound was completely manufactured for the MM's benefit. Once again when volume slowed the MM's sold several 10's of thousands of shares at a higher price, pulled their bids and then bought several 100 thousand shares at lower prices for an overall net gain of shares at lower prices. The situation for the MM's looks dire to me and a few old hands here at the Pac Exch. The gun appears to be loaded for a huge run and in the next 2 days one by one the short MM's will pull the trigger. Today was basically a non event with the MM's tipping their hand late in the day. These guys are not sleeping well tonight. Mmmm.... the more I think about it the more I am inclined to believe that the net has made things bad for MMs. If we all are not watching to buy more, they could have shaken the weak hands a bit better. They don't rule as completely as they would have if there had not been surge of online trading houses. The net may rewrite trading patterns a little (to say the least) Ramesh