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: changedmyname who wrote (603)	8/26/2000 5:47:58 PM
From: Danny	Respond to of 788

I dont understand what's so hard to understand the NSADAQ's "all trades stand" policy. Ultimately, it is the individual making the buy or sell decisions. Those who sold at 80, 70, 60, or 50 thought they were smart to be able to get out fast. Those who bought at 80, 70, 60 or 50 also thought they were smart to be able to pick shares up dirt cheap. I dont think anyone was ever hold at the gun point to make those buy/sell decisions. Now, let's suppose the news was not a hoax, can those who bought at 80 or 70 ask NASDAQ to reverse their trade because they thought it was a hoax but it turned out otherwise? I have no problem if you want to sue Internet Wire for the false news broadcasting, but this whole thing has nothing to do with NASDAQ.

To: changedmyname who wrote (603)	8/26/2000 6:00:41 PM
From: Kevin McKenzie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 788

Jason, I agree with you, but it's still an interesting ethical dilemma. I was watching EMLX all morning yesterday. I expectd it to decline and then bounce. As it approached 100, I was seconds away from buying it, but had to deal with an INCY trade first. When I checked EMLX again, it had broken 100, and I was just sitting there with my "finger on the trigger". But the Level II was so heavy on the ask, that I got an inckling that something was wrong (this was before the PR hit my newswires). So I watched and it just kept going down. When it broke through 80 with essentially no buying interest, I knew I couldn't buy until I found out what was going on. Like almost everyone else (not you apparently), I was stunned as it broke 70, 60, 50 ... I knew the big gap was at 43ish, but this was obviously not a technical gap fill. I just sat there. You made a good trade. Congratulations. My biggest question, in hindsight, is how I would feel had I bought in the 60's or 50's. The $75,000 profit would have been nice, but this was hardly a natural occurence. It had nothing to do with technicals, fundamentals, cycles, sectors, even rumors. It was a hoax. I asked my wife how she would feel, had I bought in the 40's and sold in the 120's. At first she said "How do you think I'd feel!" The only analogy I could come up with was: "What if someone blew open a bank safe and money started blowing around in the streets? Would I be justified in gathering up some of the money and keeping it, just because I happened to be in the neighborhood?" I know it's not a perfect analogy, and I know those who bought took a great risk: If the PR had been true, the stock could easily have gone to the 20's. But what happened was just not right. It wasn't like buying a stock on a buyout rumor that turns out to be true. It wasn't like buying a stock on a technical bounce. It was a crime. I also know that I would almost certainly would have kept the money had I made the trade.

To: changedmyname who wrote (603)	8/26/2000 9:06:31 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 788

I understand your attitude as it reflects ones personal attitude towards risk, value and price.... but one thing remains unresolved....as you mention that "they have jobs and are at work, and likely wouldn't pay attention to the 1 hour window it was open)."... what happened with those poor sons whose stocks have been sold off by their brokers... per the millions of stocks traded it was not one of that volumeless air holes but a well orchestrated shake...all in all I can't support that this way of redistributing money based on a hoax should hold. ...well, at the same time I trust that the executions I get are generally good and undisputed afterwards. Difficult case. puzzled...

To: changedmyname who wrote (603)	8/26/2000 10:28:58 PM
From: HoyaBob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 788

Good points: But what about the Widows Mutual Fund which had a stop loss which executed automatically? Let's say some of the 2.7 billion loss in market cap was generated by automatic stop loss orders like this. While normally the stop loss is said to be the best protection, here it created a trap for the prudent. There was actually no contract to sell under such fraudulent circumstances, was there? I suppose the brokerage contracts are written to insulate the brokerages from liability in such cases, but courts could always use equitable principles to ignore such agreements, since the parties never knowingly agreed to these particular circumstances. I ask you --socratically, of course -- what would the law presume of the parties under such circumstances? Reasonable parties. And in this case, the defrauded parties have acted reasonably, but under fraudulent circumstances beyond their control. There can be no contract under these circumstances.