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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Piffer OT - And Other Assorted Nuts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (21214)	3/2/2000 1:54:00 PM
From: HG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 63513

Have a great time in Reno.... We got tied up with hubby's new job....maybe next time...

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (21214)	3/2/2000 1:55:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 63513

You know, this PALM deal is a really blatant example of the way the underwriters do this kind of thing. I wish to propose a hypothetical situation. Any resemblance to actual events is purely coincidental. What if the underwriters on a hot deal decided that they would price the deal at 16. No wait, 38. Yeah, 38. And then, when the deal opened, they kinda started selling it at like 150 or so. And they kept selling it and it went straight down, and never came up, until like say for example 25 millions shares had crossed. What if they were just shorting the stock on the way down against stock they owned and then they covered at like say around 110. That would be a pretty good short play, don't you think? 40 points on 25 million shares. And the sheep pay it all...and they pay commissions too. Nah, that couldn't happen. That would be really illegal probably.