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 : Emulex, What Prospects? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Street Hawk who wrote (565)	8/26/2000 1:33:41 AM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 788

SH, I don't disagree with all your comments, but I do take exception to this: You guys have so much faith in equities thinking that they're supposed to always go up. It takes an EMLX hoax to smack so-called investors on the side of their heads to realize that stocks are risky assets. Risky assets are one thing, when the stock price is driven by legitimate news, company performance, and market conditions. When out and out fraud is involved, "faith in equities" is not the issue. Risk is not the issue. A smack upside the head is not what is needed, but instead, more controls on fraudulent news are required or else the hoaxsters will take over legitimate markets and manipulate them. (and yes, they can be manipulated both up and down, I'm not favoring longs or shorts here) And I'm not talking about pump and dump or bashing on stock threads, that stuff is largely ignored by liquid, non-BB stocks. I'm not even talking about companies that make fraudulent claims (at least you can sue them, and usually you can find out if they are legit BEFORE you invest). I'm talking about the big anonymous frauds you mentioned: PAIR and EMLX, where no amount of DD can prevent a loss. I can accept legitimate risk in equities. If we accept fraud as commonplace in our markets, however, people will lose trust in them and the legitimate investors will be replaced by those interested only in Las Vegas gambling, where the players get to stack the deck whenever they feel like it.

To: Street Hawk who wrote (565)	8/26/2000 1:48:13 AM
From: Surfer	Respond to of 788

<s for the gap up, you have an imbalance of idiotic market buy orders for those who thought they could get in cheap at the re-open failing to realize they were buying the MM top....> Then, why halt it? Let every one play it without a huge-gap of $70 or so. Where is the responsibility for an orderly market? How $70 or so decided. Can MM explain it with their inventory before the drop, during the drop, after the drop, etc. The halt and re-open with a huge-gap up is what to me is not a fair game. It took lot of players out of the game from buy-back, short covering etc. If the stock traded non-stop, no one could complain. Every one has a even field to risk their capital if stock was not halted. Losing is part of the game as long as one is allowed to trade, not halt it, then re-open it with a gap-up. No one can trade between $45 and $120 or so. Couldn't buy back, etc... Understand perfectly well, if EMLX gap-up is the way game is played, kitchen is too hot, so, move on to other stocks to try one's luck. Willing to learn. Thanks.

To: Street Hawk who wrote (565)	8/26/2000 8:20:03 AM
From: Techplayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 788

Street Hawk, I don't see anyone whining here. What is wrong is the halt. Let the thing trade out so that all of those poor bastards that had stops taken out in a flash can retake their positions at an equitable level once the news is proven false. If I sold at 70 on the way down, I would just want the OPPORTUNITY to try to get back in at 70 on the way back. That opportunity was not available to the individual investor. tp