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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (24291)	10/28/1997 7:51:00 PM
From: Amir Shalit	Respond to of 132070

Mike, I got back into GEMS at 11 1/16. Amir

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (24291)	10/28/1997 11:05:00 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

What gets me is the delay in confirming fills leaves the door wide open for abuse. Use a limit order, and they can just sit on it till they got a sure thing; use a market order and they can jack the qoute up an 1/8th. Now I've gotten good executions, but I've seen some times lately where the MM just didn't seem to want to play. Best example is some covered calls I sold on one of your favorites, SWC about 4 weeks ago. I put in a limit to sell a few calls at 1 1/4 two days in a row, then on the third dropped to 1 3/16's. The market maker wouldn't take the other side, is how I figure it, until someone else stepped up to take the other side, then he grabbed his spread. If I put an order in to sell 5 calls a 1/16 or 1/8th below the ask, shouldn't the ask move to show my offer? Do I have to move to 10 to see the ask drop? I know, I shouldn't trade options in backwater stocks <g> :)

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (24291)	10/29/1997 9:12:00 AM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 132070

MB, "The events in Asia are market events, not economic events which will seriously affect earnings going forward." Abby Cohen, quoted in WSJ 10/29/97 p. A6 As is usual, even in the exalted financial press here, the journalist did not ask for her reasoning, nor did she volunteer it. Just a bald assertion, totally unsubstantiated. Do you agree or disagree with her statement and why? SC

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (24291)	10/29/1997 11:37:00 AM
From: Cynic 2005	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, putting things in perspective: techstocks.com -Mohan

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (24291)	10/29/1997 11:43:00 AM
From: The Perfect Hedge	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

MB-- I put in an order at Lombard to sell stock(I watched my bid on the stock remain for 10 minutes after the order).They said the order didn't make it to their system until 45 minutes later.Meanwhile,the bid dropped and I didn't get filled.They claim it's because of traffic.Do I have grounds to push them to fill my order or am I sol due to volume?GD

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (24291)	10/29/1997 1:48:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

To All, Yesterday's High tech ironies: 1. Computerized brokerage and exchange systems were designed to handle surges in volume. They failed misearably to handle volume in this market based upon the productivity enhancement of technology. 2. Nasdaq, the crooked group that lists so many tech stocks, couldn't get their ticker working yesterday due to a computer breakdown. Oh, yeah, that is highly productive and efficient. 3. Phone systems sucked yesterday, despite the market cap of communications' tech firms. 4. The Internet went on a slow-down strike in many areas. All hail the new wired and inspired technology era and pass me the blanket for smoke signals (actually a lousy commo device in our smog-clogged world._ -g- 5. Does technology always fail to live up to its promise when put to a serious test? I would ask an F-14 pilot if I can find one who is not bailing out of his expensive hunk of junk. -g- MB