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.

Non-Tech : Conseco Insurance (CNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (2565)	8/23/2000 10:33:06 AM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 4155

Kevin re:you need to put it in some sort of context for the figure to be meaningful that is very true; how about if there are no short positions are covered that does not create extra demand for shares (sqweeze) but rather right opposite - shares are still shorted. You had a good point there but wrong conclusion, IMHO Regards -Albert

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (2565)	8/23/2000 1:09:28 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4155

kevin, how do you " inch yourself out of their 64,000,000 share positions " at a rate of 2 mill shares a day, when part of the volume are net buyers and not shorts covering? You must have been dreaming again, cheers TA@ Message 14259062 ================================================== Message #2565 from Kevin Podsiadlik at Aug 23, 2000 9:00 AM you should consider shares rather than $$$ value Well you need to put it in some sort of context for the figure to be meaningful. What good does a high short interest do you if, in spite of the the core assumptions of the short-squeeze predictors, shorts ARE able to inch out of their positions without breaking the stock's long-term downward trend?