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.

Technology Stocks : Semi Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (7256)	11/27/2002 12:24:41 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95515

If you seriously think that post of yours proved me wrong, I do not know what to say. First of all, insider trading is a crime. CFOs don't just short their companies' stocks without people knowing about it. Second, CFOs DO sell their own stocks all the time. You can look it up in finance.yahoo.com under "insider". Also, you seem to be suggesting that insiders should (and perhaps could) never sell the stock they hold in their own companies because... err... they should believe its value is "eternity" and it will always go up? Excuse me for pointing this out but such a guy would never be the CFO of a serious company anyway. Or if you know a CFO who has no notion of the value of a stock, let me know which and shorting it will probably be the easiest money I ever made. By the way, this has nothing to do with "People short because they believe a company will not do well. That is a little different than shorting the company and then hoping or working for the it to do badly", my statement that you seem to disagree with. So I do not see how it is supposed to disprove it.

To: Kirk © who wrote (7256)	11/27/2002 12:37:54 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Respond to of 95515

Back to the drawing board on this one!

To: Kirk © who wrote (7256)	11/27/2002 1:17:56 PM
From: Ira Player	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 95515

OT kirk, Your example is invalid because of the use of a person that has a fiduciary responsibility to the company to increase value. An example with that type of bias is unfair. I have never understood the issue about shorting. Meaning -- Why is this an issue? People claim it's un-american, unpatriotic, etc. It's simply required to give the game balance. I love the game of Poker. For people unfamiliar with the game, it looks fairly simple. For those that take the time to understand it, it is complex, filled with nuances that must be understood for truly effective play. There is a technique in the game of Poker that infuriates some people and they believe is should not be allowed. It is the "Check-Raise". It is allowed in all Casino play. It is often dis-allowed in many private games. Everyone understands the concept of "Bluffing". You have a weak hand, but bet as if you have a strong one. Anyone that calls or raises your bet will probably beat you. You are hoping to scare them out. "Check-Raise" occurs when someone with a strong hand "Checks" when it is his/her turn to bet. If most people "Check", the last few players are tempted to "Buy the Pot" by betting into these checks, even on a relatively weak hand. If they do, the "Check-Raiser" raises, catching the player in his "late bluff" and costing him/her an extra bet that they would not have made if facing an opening bet. It is somehow acceptable for a weak hand to "steal the pot" from a stronger hand by betting and pretending to be strong and forcing them out. But people get upset when a strong hand steals an extra bet from weaker hands by faking initial weakness. You're a bully I guess... Without this balance, there is too much "positional bias" in the game of Poker and it becomes boring. People that get to make betting decisions late, after seeing all of the decisions before them, have too much advantage. If everyone Checks, they are all admitting (not implying) weak hands. But if "Check-Raise" is allowed, the last players have to keep in mind that they may be throwing away money by betting into this weakness. Balance is required. Any tampering with a game that introduces bias distorts it in the favor of some at the expense of others. The equity markets (and derivatives, for that matter) are the same, in my opinion. For some reason, people feel having upward biases are acceptable. Close the markets if they fall more than some amount. Sure. We need "circuit breakers". Close them if they rise too fast. Are you nuts! Let um go... Why is rapid motion up less dangerous than rapid motion down? Answer: It's not. But the populations affected are different. Allow the purchase of a stock when its price is rising. Of course. Allow the short sell of a stock when its price is falling. Hell no. Only on an "Uptick." The simple fact is, the buyers at the end of a mo-mo driven rally the fissles are just as hurt as the panic sellers at the bottom of a "sell burst" that drives the price down short term. Short sellers have a function in the market food chain. When the markets get overheated, they help put on the brakes by putting their funds at risk behind the opinion that the rest of the market players are nuts to be paying such a price for an asset. They also provide support at the bottom as they cover when they feel the market has corrected. Balance is good. Just an opinion... Ira