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: KevinMark who wrote (61104)	10/22/2000 3:04:57 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

"Your proving my point exactly. The NASD DIDN'T cancel any of the trades, because they could give a rats arse about the small investor. " Kevin, you took my statement out of context, and then said I proved your point. This is unacceptable. I stated that that is what I believed, and I also stated that many that I respect felt that the trades shouldn't have been cancelled. "Do you honestly believe the institutions didn't pull out all the stops to keep that 2.5 billion in lost equity?" Stocks are priced at the margins. There was not a gain of $2.5 billion realized because for a breif moment there was a loss of $2.5 billion. There were not that many shares traded sub 50, or even sub 90, and a very meager amount at 130. Take a look at that day's candle...almost all of the shares that day traded between 100 and 110, and most closer to 110 than to 100. askresearch.com "You consider a 150% gap up, NATURAL? Yes, I do. Considering the situation, I find it completely natural. People were panic selling because of the PR, and when it became certain that the PR was false, there was no reason for any panic selling. But when the stock reopened, shorts that piled on had a reason for panic buying. If this had happened on the NYSE the stock would have been halted when the significant imbalace that drove it down to the 40s occurred, so your argument that the Nasdaq shouldn't have halted doesn't wash. Again, it points one of the superiorities of the specialist system but in no way shows corruption on the part of the market. The stock should have been halted sooner, but I'm not sure how that can be accomplished in a dealer system. "Stocks get halted, then reopen 150% higher? " Really guy, you act as if it's never happened before. While it's rare, I can think of at least 2 previous cases..QXLC and ENMD. Both gapped up several times higher than EMLX did. "The NASD allowed their boys to steal $2.5 billion,/i>" Since there wasn't anywhere near that much realized profit, that's a blatantly untrue statement. But, if you want to believe this nonsense, what can I say? I'm not sure how believing that the deck is stacked or that you're a victim of the institutions gives any advantage, but that's how I choose to approach it. Regards, Barb