SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Pitera who wrote (9886)8/10/2000 1:09:18 AM
From: Lucretius  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
John... YOU are wrong wrong VERY wrong.. and obviously didn't read what i said or you wouldn't have posted this creamer drivel to me that is saying the same thing that i just posted to you...

READ the english language and look at what the guy posted... he said the "BUYER will have to cover"

NOT the writer after the position has been closed, not go long to lock in his profit, he said "the buyer will COVER" the guy doesn't get it, period. why are you so adamant in defending this clown?



To: John Pitera who wrote (9886)8/10/2000 9:50:07 AM
From: LLCF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
<when the 56,000 puts were written by GS, or MSDW or MER
they immediately went into the market and shorted stock
to limit their exposure, or maybe shorted a ratio of stocks
and sold off puts that they had built up or that another
client wanted to sell.>

I'm not privy to the trade so I don't know who originated it... but remember, it is certainly possible that the 'originater' of the trade may not do ANYTHING to hedge... he just wants the position. For example, a fund with a boat load of CSCO may buy 10,000 puts for insurance with NO hedge on the other side. The MM's or house that facilitates the trade will, of course hedge [short the stock], but in this case there is no 'buyer of stock' as it plumets, in fact there is continued selling by the folks short the puts.

DAK