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: Mama Bear who wrote (388)	8/1/2000 4:49:46 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 543

Okay, I agree that there would usually be a dehypothecation begging as things go bad for a company. People being eaten alive do look for any avenue of escape. So 99% is possible but we can just agree to differ as I suspect less than that. Companies like Q! in 1999 don't have people suggesting dehyping. So we agree there. Good. Correlation, but not causation. Quite right that your stock position doesn't affect the discusson. But readers should keep in mind that the SEC is interested in the stock position of people who chat on chat boards as they look for conflicts between positions and statements which can be fraud or conspiratorial. For example somebody suggested in the GGMDM that I keep a book, set up a website [they'd help] to manage the process. I declined as that would possibly be manipulative in an illegal sense and illegally conspiratorial, but also, I wasn't wanting to do other than suggest dehypothecation and leave it to people to make their own decisions. I'm a somewhat solitary person, [some might find that odd] and don't like being in 'gangs' or forming 'groups'. It occurred to me later that perhaps that was the SEC setting up a 'catch' of an evil market manipulator. Nothing like a bit of paranoia to make one feel important! [Hey, my screen name WAS in the WSJ.com] You can borrow Globalstar stock without paying interest? Not call you in? Isn't that when the short squeeze fun gets going? Don't the brokers call in the stock because they need some market liquidity [or even just a few more transactions that day]? Suppose I sell stock which is hyped, [notice the subtle shift in language there], wouldn't the broker have to call it in to arrange the sale if the sale is to another party outside their firm? I have a lot of questions because I know little about shorting having never investigated it or done it and consider it 'UnAmerican'. Actually, it sounds like fun and profitable too, with many fanatics prepared to over-hype a company with little basis for success to match the hysteria. Being UnAmerican myself, I should perhaps consider it. On 'Globalstar hasn't really changed', I just meant the stock price. I am excruciatingly aware of the fundamentals which haven't changed either. The fundamentals still involve a persistent attempt to sell a product and service at an extorquerationate price which subscribers are not prepared to pay. When that fundamental problem is identified, which is a very challenging thing for management to identify, I expect they will cut the price. If only the fundamentals would change, the financial position would stop deteriorating. There is a new person at Vodafone to replace Mike Kerr, but that fundamental change is not going to be enough to increase sales dramatically since there is no indication that they intend to change the real problem. They probably just think that a few tweaks in the product image positioning is what's needed. Prolixly, Mqurice