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 : The Microcap Kitchen: Stocks 5¢ to $5 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Catfish who wrote (71178)	1/30/2008 7:01:07 PM
From: rogerover	Respond to of 120415

"Thanks for the reply. I was hoping you might give some insight into the MM's shorting stocks into the buying, and refusing to allow the price to move up.....for instance, AMLJ yesterday. And conversely, moving stocks down on the least amount of selling such as EKCS yesterday. But if you were not a MM, you would not have knowlege of what was happening." I was the .80 bid for AMLJ yesterday (one notch below the .85 best bid and just above another MM's bid at .79), so I was watching it all day hoping that someone would hit the .85. I saw no evidence that anyone shorted any stock, as distinguished from what looked like $30-40,000 of sell orders that had been placed at .90 by stockholders through MMs. There is no way to tell the difference just by looking at Time and Sales, but I recognize that a lot of people reflexively draw the conclusion that you reached. And, as luck would have it, I was also watching EKCS. If you go back to yesterday's posts, you'll see I posted here asking whether anyone could explain to me why it was at .30 x .31, when I thought it could just as easily be much higher. No one addresssed my question, and I'm happy that no one said anything too positive about it that might have swayed me because I almost bought a chunk at .31. I traded a few other things yesterday instead, but I watched EKCS all day and saw nothing unusual except a lack of bidding interest. If there's a MM bid for 5000 without an actual larger customer order standing behind it, and someone hits it, the bid drops - no big mystery there. Rinse and repeat. EKCS actually absorbed 30,000+ shares of selling between .30 and .28, below which the bids dried up. Forgive me if I'm not understanding something about your point, and I don't really watch EKCS that closely even though it's been on my monitor since $1.00. "On the other hand, it was good to see a stock like SYNM run up today. It appeared the MM's had no choice but to let it run as they lost control of it." I don't think it's accurate to say that MMs had, or wanted, "control" of SYNM. They make money on activity, whether up, down, or churning in place (but MORE money if they can sneak in a few front-running trades on a stock that's running - that's the one thing that people complain about that I think has some validity). The thing did 1.8 million shares, so the buying overwhelmed the sellers. No big mystery there, either. Caveat: I don't follow SYNM at all.