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.

Pastimes : MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT --- Can We Stop It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Gore who wrote (12)	5/9/2002 8:19:22 PM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 589

No, I'm saying that the post that I responded to shows that whomever wrote it has a complete lack of knowledge of how markets work and why price moves the way it does.

To: Dave Gore who wrote (12)	5/10/2002 12:57:43 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 589

Are you denying everything that Richard Ney ever said? Maybe she isn't, but I am. Ney was a self-serving manipulating con artist. If you wish, I will refute every argument of his. Are you denying that Market Makers occassionally manipulate or break rules and that specialists manipulate rather regularly? I am. I was an MM both firm and floor. NO ONE breaks the rules. It isn't in an MM's interest to do so. If an MM does, their expected return declines. Aside from that, it isn't possible to break rules or manipulate. Say you're an MM in front of a computer screen with 20 other guys in a room doing the same. Your assigned stocks are trading 20 times per second and MMs from various firms all over the world are represented by their B/As on the screen which are rapidly changing. Please tell me what button you will push or lever that you will pull that will enable you to manipulate the market? If you think manipulation is possible, then let's hear your argument, and I will refute it using what you know as I have done repeatedly on various SI threads over the years. Please get your best and most knowledgeable MMs from say, NITE, or other sources of pathological lying. I'd like to embarrass them publicly. Please get what you think is the most astute financial mind, and I will show you to within what you can comprehend how easily their air head assertions can be crushed. You won't find one. Are you saying that analysts don't unduly influence a stock's performance for the gain of the firm's clients? Few complained about that on the upside. I was an exception and I'm on record especially on the ATHM thread as having done so. I complained about Blodgett to the SEC and the SEC never responded. No naive innocents complain when markets move in their favor. Further, I'm currently complaining about Briefing's rumor innuendo to the SEC, but neither the SEC nor the public want me to pursue the matter, although pre-Levitt SECs would have had Briefing's head on a platter by now. Briefings claims it's their job to rumor monger. Why aren't you complaining? Don't you know how manipulative spreading rumors is? Are you saying that Jim Cramer didn't go on CNBC sometime back and issue "Strong Buys" on stocks that he quickly liquidated into the resultant buying? You don't know that. You don't know what Cramer did even if he claimed he did it. Let's say he did. Are you saying that you're so naive as to trust the judgement of that clown? Are you defending the innocent naive's who you posit in order to beat your drum? Why do 9 of 10 people who buy puts and call otpions lose some or all their money? Doesn't this defy the odds? No, it doesn't. The odds say that almost 100% should lose since buying options long has a notoriously large negative expected return. That means the longer you play, the higher the probability is that you will be ruined. The option market like the other markets can't be manipulated. In fact, you can't even define what "manipulation" means in conjunction with capital markets. Although it is better now with Reg. FD, You are totally wrong. FD has brought about the exact opposite of its intent. It has forced companies to become opaque to anyone trying to investigate them. In the past you could get a good fundamental view of a company by calling them or doing other hard work investigative efforts, but not now. Further, FD hasn't brought about full disclosure. It's brought about a need to conceal. why did so many formerly buy or sell stocks an hour or two before news was released to the rest of the public? Speculation. When you have a lot of gamblers you can expect a lot of wild guesses based on risk/reward and the expectation that later players will create enough action to make the expectation pay. I could go on and on. No you can't. As I said before, if ALL risks of the market were explained to everyone before they invested, then I would say, "Fine, let the buyer beware." This is a contradiction in terms. Why would the buyer need to beware if the buyer knew all the risks? How does one separate normal risk fluctuation from what you claim is fluctuation due to manipulation? Haven't you understood that fear of manipulation is incorporated in risk fluctuation? How can one say that natural exogenous forces aren't simply equivalent to manipulation? Since you can't define manipulation, can't separate it from what occurs naturally, you argue against the intrinsic unfairness in the world. You must be a 'crat. Heck, the rules and risks are clearly spelled out when you buy a CD or read an IPO Prospectus? Since when are risks "spelled out" when you buy a CD? And what good is all the hand waving about risk stated in IPOs? You can make no judgement about a company based on that and I challenge you to show to the contrary. Why read the risk lay-off when you don't trust the company in the first place. The SEC only requires that a company include that. They don't require that it is accurate.