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 : Euroweb International - NASDAQ: EWEB -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: allen menglin chen who wrote (473)	1/30/2000 12:35:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 566

>>Is it any wonder the price of Euroweb had soared? It was being forced up by a short squeeze ¦ a squeeze that was making millionaires out of holders of the warrants.<< This makes no sense. The author states that prior to the run up in the shares there was essentially no short position. Then, at then end of a run up, there is a short position of 400,000+ shares. But if there was no short position at the beginning of the run up, there could be no short squeeze, and no run up because of it. The way I read these statistics is that the run, like any breathtaking run up, attracted short sellers. Ergo, we see a short position after the run up and not before. A "short squeeze" diminishes short interest rather than increases it--by definition, it causes shorts to close their positions by covering. The other things alluded to--short selling and warrant plays--are possible, but lacking in proof. KPN did its due diligence here, and is putting money into this company. They will control it soon. And the market has faith in KPN, a $42 billion market cap company. That is a positive factor the author ignores.

To: allen menglin chen who wrote (473)	1/30/2000 2:54:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 566

>>The number of shares sold short in the market had jumped from a mere 775 to an incredible 472,016, or close to a third of the average number of shares changing hands in the open market each day. Is it any wonder the price of Euroweb had soared? It was being forced up by a short squeeze ¦ a squeeze that was making millionaires out of holders of the warrants.<< Oh, I forgot this part. The short interest jumped to the "incredible" number of 472,016, "or close to a third of the average of number of shares changing hands in the market each day." Incredible? That's a short cover ratio of 0.3 days, which I believe all experienced market analysts would refer to as "microscopic" or "inconsequential." Incredible? The only thing incredible here is that a financial writer would fall so far into error in what is a very basic area. Large short positions are in the 20-70 range. See for yourself: viwes.com No 0.3's there. Was Byron confused? Or was he just simply "short" of negative arguments.

To: allen menglin chen who wrote (473)	1/30/2000 3:30:00 AM
From: chalu2	Respond to of 566

Here's the article again: >>But the very next day, Nov. 16, volume exploded to nearly 25 million shares, or close to three times the total Euroweb shares in existence, and the stock took off. Not long afterward, Nasdaq reported short interest data for the period that included Nov. 16 and ended Dec. 15, and guess what: The number of shares sold short in the market had jumped from a mere 775 to an incredible 472,016, or close to a third of the average number of shares changing hands in the open market each day. Is it any wonder the price of Euroweb had soared? It was being forced up by a short squeeze ¦ a squeeze that was making millionaires out of holders of the warrants.<< He's very plainly attributed the November rally to a short squeeze. But there was almost no short interest--0.3% coverage ratio. In doing this where no reasonable argument can be made, the author is either sloppy, confused, or intellectually disingenuous.