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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TGL WHAAAAAAAT! Alerts, thoughts, discussion. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Buckey who wrote (145653)	7/28/2005 8:22:57 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 150070

BCIT should be very interesting. I tried to do an analysis on how I felt it would play out according to UCC and transfer law. I don't think anyone wants to hear it. More interested in the possible short squeeze. IMO, if the scammer isn't caught and I guess he has a pretty good record of escaping liability, then I believe the broker who took his shares takes the hit, as all transactions get traced back to that broker. Then there is the power under SEC acts and regs to cancel all transactions. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I have a few shares and could have sold yesterday at a small profit. I figured worst case is that the trades are cancelled and funds tied up for a couple of months. It's a tiny amount for me so I don't care about that. OTOH, if as the longs claim, there will be a massive squeeze, which I tend to doubt, I've got it in for sale at some number which makes it lucrative to me. In any event, this is another case which shows that the whole system of clearing and information sharing needs to be changed, probably along with bringing the MM function into the 21st century and working harder to limit the ability of scamming CEO's, touts, MM's and, of course, hedgies and naked shorts, to manipulate our markets. How do you think BCIT will play out?