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 : Meet Gene, a NASDAQ Market Maker -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sir Francis Drake who wrote (783)	8/25/2000 5:39:00 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1426

Hey Morgan, My concern is that if the only consequence of this sordid affair is an electronic fox hunt leading to the prosecution of the offending parties, we may see an uptick in the frequency of this type of activity. Worse yet, if no arrests/prosecutions/etc. are made, that the door to profit illicitly off of disseminating fraudulent information in this manner may appear to swing wide open. The economic incentive to commit this type of crime has to be removed, or IMO we may see an "arms race" revolving around wrongdoers' escalating efforts to commit similar crimes with incrementally better methods of concealing their tracks. Then again...if the regulators' SOP in cases such as this became to break all trades in the issue within (x) hours/days/time period, individuals or institutions second-guessing recent large purchases or sales might be motivated to make the trade breaking policy work for them... As for QLGC, well, I'm with you. Sympathetic effects of today's hoax could conceivably go as far as some of the large cap NASDAQ issues, which could imply effects on index trading, trading on the exchanges, and the like. That line of reasoning has the potential to be the mother of all slippery slopes. But the stickiest issue I see with breaking trades, let alone on the leviathan scale as todays trading in this issue suggests is this: what of the individual who days, weeks, months ago, shorted this issue and profited today, by luck? What of those who, just before the halt, bought shares? Once again, where does one draw the line? I can't wait to see how this one pans out, as every side fairly shouts, "Precedent!" LPS5

To: Sir Francis Drake who wrote (783)	8/26/2000 6:08:11 PM
From: Dan Duchardt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1426

Morgan, I agree with you that QLGC or other issues that might have been influenced by the hoax are too far removed to take any "corrective action" like busting trades. My strong feeling is that by stopping trading long after serious damage had been done to many people, and then resuming trading after the hoax had been exposed and that news disseminated the regulators did more harm to more people, and created windfalls for more people that the hoaxers did. It would have been far more helpful, IMHO, for NASD and EMLX to have issued a bulletin to the wire services AS SOON AS they were aware false information had been released to the public instead of no doubt adhering to some antiquated protocol for reporting and dealing with such events. Personally, I think every effort should be made to remove event driven price discontinuities from the market instead of artificially creating them. I took a 2 point stop loss on a $13 stock the other day that I entered without realizing they were reporting earnings after market that day. I looked it up and knew it well before I stopped out, but in hindsight it is obvious that somebody who was in a position to influence a lot of shares knew it several hours before the announcement, at which point it dropped another 3 points in after hours trading. Why announce when the market is closed? Who does that help? Only the people who have inside information. IMHO, it should be mandatory that all major announcements should be made during market hours, and preferably during the middle part of the day. At least that way the public has an opportunity to react. Sure, there will still be an advantage to getting the information early. There is no way to change that, but at least you can create ramps between the highs and lows that now appear as huge gaps. Dan

To: Sir Francis Drake who wrote (783)	8/27/2000 12:51:53 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1426

Hi Sir Francis Drake; Glad you're posting on the Meet Gene thread, and I agree with you with regard to the QLGC trades. The one thing a trader has to do is to take responsibility for his trades, good, bad or break even. Anything else is just a trader trying to avoid the facts of life, and the one thing a trader has to do is be realistic. -- Carl P.S. Your posts are always like a breath of fresh air. I'll bet you type 180 words a minute.