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.

Biotech / Medical : CYBR CyberCare the new look of healthcare -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: peter michaelson who wrote (2285)	6/20/2000 2:10:00 AM
From: sommovigo	Respond to of 3392

Peter - could be, but a conundrum remains... why watershed selling? See, I believe that anyone who wants to take and preserve a profit would do it in an organized fashion in small lumps with limit orders so as not to degenerate the price in order to maximize the profit. Any possible offshore selling as watershed selling in those first 20 minutes would have destroyed much of the profit that any such offshore seller might have otherwise been able to retain. It doesn't make sense. So while it may be fairly common for scammy companies to use offshore brokers, I suspect that it is not fairly common for them to blast away at their own profits by driving the price down with a flurry of market sales. The only people who could possibly benefit by the kind of action that was demonstrated on the morning of February 23rd in the first 20 minutes of trading would be short-sellers as far as I can tell. Remember - no bad news, and in fact no bad news until Herb's tirade starting May 2. Also look at the chart for Feb 22nd... looked like a trial run to test weakness which, once confirmed, would have been the "green light" for a short-attack on Feb 23rd. There is always a reason, and "market fickleness" is as weak an excuse as I have ever heard come out of CYBR or any company. I was far from satisfied with that as an explanation and would have preferred they said nothing at all. The reason is usually directly related to QUI BONO - the people who are the most likely to benefit by the action are also most likely the ones that initiated it.