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 : Canadian REITS, Trusts & Dividend Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stan_hughes who wrote (1111)	6/14/2001 11:15:19 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

-------------------------------- Since Stan has chosen not to respond to my questions or comments. I will still respond to his. That way others here can still get both sides of the argument. Then with all the facts presented. And with a complete lack of response from Stan which all should see it for what it is. They can come to their own and correct conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott - I appreciate you trying to put some sense of scale on the issue, but those short position figures only cover the mandatory reporting requirements for a specified date. They do not reflect the short position on a continuous basis. ------------------------------------- Then quite simply get a hold of that missing data. The short positions on a continuous basis. Gee such a simple task to answer a simple question. See what it says ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The swine who profit from frontrunning would have sold the issue for a few days ahead, especially on Monday, June 11, and then covered at their first opportunity. -------------------------------- Well lets see if this makes sense. They would have sold ( wrong choice of words for Stan to use what they would have really done and what Stan obviously meant to say is that they MAY (??????) have began shorting much earlier and then when the price began to drop down to where the new issue price they would have reversed their strategy ) the issue a few days ahead missing out on a "guaranteed" further price drop. Just how convenient for Stan's side of the argument that they would do that. It makes completely no sense on their part. They would have knowingly and willingly missed out on a GUARANTEED further gain for themselves. And if one were to look at the trading numbers for that day. Particularly brokerage block trades. Or any large block trades for that matter. It is not supported by the facts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consequently, their temporary short position will never be reported. While we're on the topic, those reports also do not take into account any undisclosed shorts. ---------------------------- But if as I have surmized there are no undisclosed shorts. A statement that Stan as of yet would have to prove with facts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are we to believe there are secret accounts. Secret accounts with an activity of trading blocks of stock in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Yes I am sure that such activity would be very easy to hide. NOT A 99 year grandmother could spot it.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You will never hear about those, even if the TSE does catch the firms with their books offside, ------------------------------------- If the practise would be happening the firms would hardly keep it on their books. First its a open activity then its a hidden activity and now agian its an open activity. Boy just what is it already?. At least stick to one story. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- because they don't publicly admonish brokers on such matters. When they do it at all, they do it in the smoke-filled back room where the public can't see. ------------------------------ and this brings me back to my point. If it were going on someone before now would have figured it out. Having figured it out they would have collected the evidence. Bypassed the exchanges all together. Gone to court. Presented the evidence to a judge and jury. The judge would have had no choice but to rule against the institutions. The suit bringer would be paid millions of dollars. Investors would have been reimbursed for any losses. The institutions would have been fined. And the practise would be stopped. Since not one of theses things has taken place. The practise doesn't exist. I will remind everyone again of the lawsuits brought against the institutions in the BreX affair. Not one has every been successful.------------------------------------------------------- Peter