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 (61106)	10/22/2000 2:46:08 PM
From: Prognosticator	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Umm, it was in 40 point type being screamed about on CNBC. Same argument as business wires: unless you happen to be near a TV you wouldn't even know. Hmm, better to take the loss in the case where a a stop loss would have been a valuable strategy rather than take the risk of a loss on a six sigma event? I think not... Know your company before you buy: if you put in a stop-loss why not just sell now, or go short against the box? Also, I'm not sure you're in the right place to be arguing a b&h strategy. True. I'm only here because of the work Anthony and TheTruthseeker are putting into HAND. I just sold my position once I realized what was going on there with the pending unlock, so I'm grateful. I shall remain grateful up to about $150/share, then I'm going to short. I'm scared though, since shorting has unlimited downside: maybe a straddle with some call options to limit upside? Or is a buy-to-close limit a better way to go (given all the bad things I've said about stop-loss I think not). P.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (61106)	10/22/2000 2:46:45 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Respond to of 122087

Barb, It is interesting to follow a when and then and what-if discussion about an incident which is some time (in today's nanosecond times a light year) away.... Addmittedly, I see that the emulex/qlogic etc thing was not a small scale fraud, but then it is an isolated case which has nothing to do with normal course of (fraudulent) market operations. But what about rigged games, fraudulent above market buy-ins, false openings, collusive stepping back of the "market", running stops, exploiting margin calls, (see Thursday, Oct 18, around 10:30-11:00).... Other examples? What about the AVCO (the stock which rose from 2 to 34 and opened at 3 the other day)? What about the likewise fraudulent squeeze in ABR Information (ABRX) a stock taken out by CEN but rose from 25 to 100 one day...etc,...questionable trading and an even more questionable trading halt in CHAR (Autumn 1999), and shortly after, an even more ridiculous rally in Ariel? The EMLX case is a muster case to point out individual fraud (or fraud committed by one individual), as opposed to a system which appearently can't live without asymmetrical information? When I look at the "exaggerated" volatility in the securities market, which has nothing to do with individual decisions, the widespread quote manipulation in the horse races betting comes to my mind...we must live with it.