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 : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amots who wrote (10259)	12/4/2001 8:45:29 AM
From: tdl4138	Respond to of 99280

Is this a trick question?

To: Amots who wrote (10259)	12/4/2001 8:49:58 AM
From: t2	Respond to of 99280

Amots, I would say the guy who shorted at 80 did better. Just not about percentages. You would short a lot more at 80 than one would buy at 25cents, that is, a lot more money would be committed to shorting at 80 than buying at a quarter. Maybe percentage gains are a bit misleading...in this case.

To: Amots who wrote (10259)	12/4/2001 9:00:08 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

The problem with your math is would that someone had bought the same value of shares that would have been shorted at $80? $400,000 short at $80 is 5000 shares. It would take the equivalent of 1.6 million shares long at .25. Who is that nuts and has 20/20 vision when the stock has cratered from $80 to $10 to $5 to $3 to $1.20, to 60c to 25c to do that? Nobody that's who. And anybody who did try along the way to catch a falling knife got killed. The shorts made huge money on this one while longs got killed. Sorry. That's the truth. And even if you don't believe that shorts shorted the top, they had a hell of a lot opportunities to short Enron on the way down. The beauty and pounding a stock takes when is both overvalued and has been cooking the books. Longs on the other hand that tried to pick the bottom on Enron got slaughtered.