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 : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (55308)	4/29/2000 2:31:00 AM
From: 1-DAY-TRADER	Respond to of 122087

Do you believe in the lottery ?? picking the RIGHT PICK is like winning the lottery .. you ony here about it from others or on CNBC .. but it never happens to you :) I am content with my mere 10-20% per day return on my shortig investment, multilpy that 10-20% times 365 days a year times 10 yrs .. WOWWWWWW :)

To: Dale Baker who wrote (55308)	4/29/2000 2:35:00 AM
From: Anthony@Pacific	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 122087

Now wait a minute when I shorted TERN @ 170 and covered at 64..I( made just as much cash as the guy who who bought at 64 and sold at 170 on the way..up and the cash required was very much the same.. long at 64 X 70% X 1000 shares on margin( assuming you can even get that nowadays) = $44,800 sell at 170 = return of $ 106,000 bucks = 236% ---------------------- Short @ 170 X 1000 shares requires a deposit of 51,000 bucks Cover @ 64 = gain of 106,000 bucks = 207% ---------------------- Thats the true story, if you r firm doesnt allow margin on turd stocks than the return on th elong side is reduced to: a measly 165 % The short was better pecernt wise yet everyone made the same exact dollar gain Playing the percent game is nonsense. Consistancy is the key.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (55308)	4/29/2000 2:38:00 AM
From: Jay Fisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

I wonder if some of the junk like AMZN is considered too big to let fail ??? Herb G's comments: "Amazon's $2 billion in bonds, which have been a longtime thorn in the company's side, currently yield around 12.5% and trade at around 62 cents on the dollar, suggesting that bondholders remain concerned about Amazon's viability. "That's the same yield we're paying Colombia," cracks one short-seller. "And they're sufficiently concerned that they're paying twice the rate of Treasuries for first claim on the assets." Stuff like this is everywhere ! Noticed that even EEEE has a negative book value, at least according to Yahoo, not the most credible source.