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 : Globalstar Memorial Day Massacre -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rf_hombre who wrote (209)	5/17/2000 5:54:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 543

Yes, hombre, selling GSTRF and buying Loral would indeed get you more share of GLP than just sticking with your GSTRF when the price difference is more than whatever it needs to be. Plenty of people have worked out the ratio - I haven't. It's just another way for the magic of the market to reprice everything so that it all makes sense. Shorts will be able to cover at lower cost. Arbitrageurs will be rewarded for their efforts. With the steeply rising price last trading day, it seems that more action is likely. The GGMDM is starting to look as though it will be a boring non-event thanks to everyone figuring out what to do to reprice G! to match the fundamentals of Q! having provided vendor finance and things going a bit better in sales. The idea of GLP running out of money seems to be dying. The shorts seemed to base much of their thinking on that silly idea, which was never a possibility. Okay, some think the handsets too clunky and the minutes too expensive as well. It's obvious that pre-announcing in a public forum illegal price manipulation for personal pecuniary gain would NOT be the way to riches! Shorts would cover weeks before the event. Buyers would buy. All would adjust to whatever might happen. It would be much more effective to do it like George Gilder, or the various upgrade/downgrade analysts, WSJ etc who plan their ideas, opinions and announcements in private then suddenly announce the price manipulating information causing a rush for the stock in the space of 10 minutes. George Gilder quite deliberately keeps the information secret so the subscribers, [the in-group] get the information BEFORE other people in the market so they can immediately buy the stock before the sellers know there is a "BUY ALARM" on the shares. Now THAT's manipulation!! I wonder if the WSJ is happy publishing op-ed pieces from GG knowing that he gives such price-manipulative information in secret for the express purpose of diddling other market participants out of their money by inducing them to sell based on their ignorance of a sudden demand. All very fascinating. The WSJ is obviously NOT very coherent. Where is the Californian Law Enforcement official and the SEC? Will the WSJ ask them for their legal opinions? Apparently it's okay to suggest to a big bunch of people, secretly, so they can trade on the information before others, that they all buy a stock and put it in their accounts, knowing that this will manipulate the price steeply upwards. But it's not okay to suggest that people move their stock to a cash account to avoid others borrowing it against their will, but not doing it for a few weeks so that it can all be announced, discussed, promoted, etc while shorts and others get a chance to move their positions in the market without undue haste and without loss and the prospect of gain if they can estimate the moves correctly. Will the WSJ admit that they got it wrong? Will Bill the Californian apologize? What about that joker Bryan Whatshisname who admits working for SI < Silicon Investor prohibits members from using its boards to engage in illegal activity. "We do respond to regulatory agencies that inform us of illegal practices, but that area is not our expertise," says Byran Burdick, a spokesman. "As an investor I would be suspect of what this guy is doing."> Actually Bryan, you should more correctly say "As an investor I would be suspicious of what this guy is doing". But usually it's not good form to call customers and contributors to your business 'this guy'. It's demeaning somehow. Of course the WSJ probably got the quote wrong! Anyway Bryan, why would you be suspicious of me and what I'm doing? Got some basis for thinking that or just getting your opinions from the WSJ? Actually, it's not just what I'm doing. It's what a LOT of people seem to have decided independently to do having considered their own positions and interests. All I did was start a thread and take part in the discussion on what it all might mean. The WSJ was the main promoter of the idea. The idea came from elsewhere. There is no set date for people to move stock - it's just whenever they feel like it and I suggested around the end of the month to give everybody time to think about it. It seems people have thought about it all they want to! Now the discussion is quiet and people are doing their own thing as and when they like. Kind of like one of those 'quiet periods' companies are obliged to have. In the meantime, markets open in a few hours for more work by the 'invisible hand'. Mqurice PS: Before any X-Files fans get too excited, that's a reference to Adam Smith's market-adjusting 'invisible hand' not some illegal, secretive, SI price-fixing club. Maybe I'm getting a bit picky and hypersensitive to Bryan [that guy], the WSJ and Bill from California.