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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Montana Wildhack who wrote (6726)	2/11/2001 12:16:23 PM
From: Mark Bartlett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

Wolf, Good question and to be honest I have no idea. I know what I would do, assuming the strategy were legal, if I were in that position - I would put a rather inconsequential barrier in place which needed to be met, before the change became material news. This condition would be something that was easily dealt with when the timing was right - but until it was right, it would remain in place. Perhaps Wilyolvet could elucidate a strategy or two for this particular situation. MB

To: Montana Wildhack who wrote (6726)	2/13/2001 12:51:17 PM
From: Joe Krupa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

A question regarding the Acqua deal. Let's say on the last day of the 20 day quiet period, Acqua decides that the volumetrically weighted, average price (WVAP), is too high for the first drawdown -- perhaps due to the higher volume days lately being the days the price ran up to $9.00. What if Acqua arranged for a cross of, for example, 200,000 shares in the mid-$7s (a simple paper transaction)? This extra volume could significantly lower the VWAP, especially given the low volume traded lately. Does anyone know if crosses count? joe