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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (81949)	6/25/2000 1:58:00 PM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne, excellent comments HO HO HO I wonder if BGR is still buying super unleaded gas for $ 1.68. the best price in my area is the low 1.90 range for super unleaded with some over $2.00 . The BLS will not acknowledge increase gas costs they will suggest that car pooling has kept the consumers overall fuel costs stable moreover motorists drive more intelligently - moderate accelartion and no speeding have reduced fuel consumption. -vbg- Mike

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (81949)	6/25/2000 4:33:00 PM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne: An excellent commentary. I agree with every bit of it. Personally, I got run over by a train in 1998, primarily because the deteriorating fundamentals we spotted, were ignored by the market (my first experience with a mania). This is why I have confined most of my short side activity ever since, to the "mortally wounded" stocks. As you note, manipulated stocks have become quite common today and for reasons such as you suggest. Micron is a good example. While I enjoy digging into such stocks, I have learned to watch from a distance until the grenade pin has been pulled. (g) Another aspect of stock manipulation that is of interest to me is both who is doing it and how it is accomplished. In many instances, the company hierarchy are the villains, but often enough, it is funds, brokerage houses, even specific trading desks, that are doing it. Why am I so interested? Because a stock manipulation almost always blows up. They make for delightful future targets. (g) A tough lesson for shorts to assimilate is that companies inevitably last much longer than logic would lead one to expect. I did some decent research on this years ago and wrote an article entitled "The Shorts' Two Year Agonizing Wait". I found that the probability of a company surviving a complete business collapse related directly to whether or not the stock was "institutionally owned". If yes, then the company would likely survive at least another year or two, primarily because most CEOs know that all it takes to get another tranche of dough is to change either the business plan, or the executive suite (or what-have-you) and the institutional holders would pony up additional dollars. Why would they do this? They hate admitting to their errors, there is a chance that the company indeed might be able to turn itself around, but above all else they believe the added dough gives them a chance to dump the stock rather than book a big loss. The trouble with ignoring the rigs is that you miss some remarkable tumbles. MB's put strategy makes much sense to me as a method for dealing with them. I have shamelessly utilized his approach for certain of my favourites. I add my own wrinkle, which is to favour deep-out-of-the-money puts. Best, Earlie