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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (61098)	10/22/2000 1:52:44 PM
From: Anthony@Pacific	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

I assure you that before The Company issued any kind of statement, they were on the phone wit their Investment Bankers and The Heads of the respective Trading Departments and they told them the story was false, and then and only then after a nice period of those firms buying everything that they could from longs and shorts alike at the very bottom levels,,was the company free to issue a release stating that the news story was a fake... Then the NASD aided the entire thing by halting thge stock allowing the market makers in question to sit up and open it where it was pre -release.. The Market makers and the company colluded to benefit at the expense of everyone, even wwith the bad news being defrocked

To: Mama Bear who wrote (61098)	10/22/2000 2:26:10 PM
From: Prognosticator	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

So you think that only a 'gambler' would sell based on a semingly legitimate press release that states the CEO has resigned in disgrace, that the SEC is investigating, and that earnings were falsified? Gee whiz, if that's not a good reason to sell I don't know what would be. No, I think that only 'professional' traders have the time to monitor the business wires that send out those press releases. B&H investors would not even know about this debacle in time to get taken. Unless they were foolish enough to put a stop-loss sale order in place, in which case they've learned why that's a bad idea now. My largest holding is SUNW. I bought it in 1996 and have held (with a brief experiment in shorting against the box and put options which I now realize is futile). If a press release came out about Scott McNealy resigning and the SEC investigating I would (1) laugh (2) buy as much stock as I could on the way down. Of course, the whole thing would be over before I even knew about it. Hmm, maybe I should put some buy-at-limit orders in... IMO the gamblers were the folks who went long in the face of that news unless they had done enough DD to realize that the odds were that it was phony. Even then, it was a calculated risk. True. But somebody has to provide liquidity. That's my only problem with Anthony's call for the NASD to disband: who would provide liquidity? If the NASD didn't exist, wouldn't we have to invent it? P.