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: Mama Bear who wrote (570)	8/26/2000 2:18:21 AM
From: Surfer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 788

Barb, Thanks for excellent response. One clarification: <The gap up was caused because many sold short assuming the fraudulent PR was true and had to cover their trade.> Not sure I understand. How can they short it on the down-tick? Saw it with horror the stock dropped like a rock from $106 or so. Not sure there was an uptick all the way to the dumpster... Guess, time to accept the pain and move on. I'm going to stop whining and move on with the pain that someone can scare the hell out of your position with a loss and then re-open it with a gap-up. So, advance thanks for if any response. Thanks.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (570)	8/26/2000 3:55:26 AM
From: jjkirk	Respond to of 788

Hi Barb, Thanks for your reasoned explanation of the gap up to 130 at the reopen...I didn't sell in the downdraft, but I did come to the now-illogical conclusion that a mkt order would be filled somewhere below 110...Got filled @ 127 which immediately dropped to 106 per your explanation. Pleased to make your acquaintance even if under these interesting/painful circumstances... Joe K......

To: Mama Bear who wrote (570)	8/26/2000 10:02:42 AM
From: RockyBalboa	Respond to of 788

MB, first many thanks for your post regarding p... 's childish accusations. Meanwhile I read through the many posts and releases reg. Emulex. After having experienced some situations with "bad" news and trading halts involved, many questions arise: 1) The process of news, dissemination and imposed trading halts (and timing issues): -It remains unclear whether and when a stock is being halted. To me, the correct process would involve a notification of market authorities in any case a piece is being released (with an emphasis on releases with a likely influence on price, like earnings, purchases/sales of core assets, developments reg. liabilities, business combinations). In many other recent cases, and I refer to preannouncements made during market time (including pre, and aftermarket hours) trading appears to be delayed regularly - mostly related to cases of adverse revenue/earnings etc. disseminations. To me, it is ridiculous that the trading halt has been set about one hour later, when in fact the whole damage has been done. At the time it simply was too late and the effect of the trading halt (namely to prevent "wrong" trading) were no benefit but provided for additional damage. The correct process would have involved the nasdaq market watch reviewing the release before dissemination (regardless whether being confirmed by EMLX or not, in that special case) and immediately imposing the trade halt while reviewing the first release... I remember only one trading halt which was timely enough to prevent much damage: When a bogus press release regarding GERN buying ASTM appeared and ASTM, Geron denied, the trading was halted quickly premarket when only comparably small turnover happened. It opened early at market hours again and left the stock basically unchanged to the day ago. A slight addition with regards to NYSE/AMEX: Some time ago I bought some stocks which were connected to the Basic Capital Management. What happened? After the news with the alleged Mob connection were out, trading in the four companies has been delayed. The next day the stocks opened low and "slowly" recovered. 2 of them traded for about 45 minutes only to get halted again. I complained bitterly as I have gotten into the stocks in that short window and found myself shortchanged because the news leading to the second halt (lasting for about a week) were available long time before market hours, so the reopen after the first halt was not justified at all... To my disappointment the Nasd/Amex marketwatch (regarding the AMEX stock) did not comment its decision nor further elaborate what led to the delay. 2) The OTC market as a whole: -The nasdaq refers to individual brokers for the case of resolving trade disputes. To me, it looks like leaving the issue completely unresolved and results in pure Darwinism rather than a planned and orderly resolution of trade disputes. As the nasdaq is no exchange, but a gathering of individual market makers/marketplaces (liek ECNS)...it also lacks the basis to meet a decision applicable to all participants. This shows in fact how vulnerable the marketplace is. The technical setup may be fair to excellent, when viewing how easily the vast amount of transactions are handled day after day...but I believe the form of organisation is not favoring an equal treatment of market participants. 3) Nullified trades: -some claim that trades should be cancelled. I remember only one incident (some claim that trades have never been undone), namely the failed first IPO of claimsnet, where quite a number of trades on their market day has been cancelled as the offering has not been completed. This is a very special case, however. It appears to me that from a technical view it is possible to undo the trades. I see some dangers for the marketplace if cancelling of trades on the basis of misleading company releases was established. Besides the flood of claims at courts, the additional efforts in handling cancellations, I believe that people will no longer trust in the marketplace...as the timeframe in which deals will be contested remains undefined. In an extreme example, company A posts earnings of a dollar a share but restates one year later to zero (or more simple, make bright claims about their future earning which of course don't materialize later), market participants could claim a rollback of their positions as their decisions (on investing in the company) the lacks any basis...the possibilities would be near to infinite and the trading market (as we see it today) would perhaps be gone. What remains is that in any case it is a disappointment and trust has been severely destroyed. It is no OTC penny stock, but a Billion dollars blue chip...