SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: s martin who wrote (10418)10/30/1997 7:43:00 PM
From: DJ Byrne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 55532
 
space martin,

The shorters IMO had never any idea of covering. The squeeze that you mention since April had one flaw and that was they did not call in for their certs. And then the last thing the shorters expected was a group of investors during the last week of August to stick together and stay together and capture the float in certificate form. For you not seeing a squeeze is of no consequence to everyone that can.

Proof:
1. Shareholders have held.......
2. Squeeze is on..........

#7 give me the juuuuuiiiiicccccceeeeee...... and now for the wakeup!!!!!



To: s martin who wrote (10418)10/30/1997 7:50:00 PM
From: Just My Opinion  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 55532
 
s amrtin: Actually, there would be no reason for the shorters to cover. The longer they waited, the more probability there was that they would never have to cover, until Riley and the rest of the "good" guys came along. This company was on shaky footing, I doubt if anyone will argue with that. That in itself is not bad, lots of small companies have their times of troubles.
Now to me, the REALLY funny thing would be the following.
Lets say the squeeze starts to kick in.
Gary and Roland issue 100,000 shares at the market price of say ten.
They decide to change the business, and become an investmeny company. They take the million they got from the 100000 shares the company just sold and buy 30 year treasuries.
The companies only income is interest income.
That doesn't matter, because there is a short squeeze on, and the MM's have to pay a couple of hundred dollars a share for a company that is only making 60,000 a year in income.
Now the squeeze potentially never ends, because there is always 2-3 million shares outstanding ( sold) that do not exist.
At some point in time, the company decides to issue some more stock, getting say 100 million in proceeds.
They then take this money and leverage it, and buy who knows what.
Man, I like stories like this.
Really gets the old "what if?" part of the brain going.
Great idea, huh? :-),:-),:-)...al




To: s martin who wrote (10418)10/30/1997 7:53:00 PM
From: douglas hicks  Respond to of 55532
 
s martin: did it ever occur to you that it was shorted at 4,3 and even 2 dollars if not before, from 17 cents to 4.00 is a short waiting to happen, if i was a broker and saw a move from 17 cents to 4 dollars, sure i would short, as i'm sure many did and are waiting for 17 cents again, hoping they can bust the movement. Then i could always be wrong, that's what makes investing tricky.Isupport the effort made by the short busters and hope they kick ---, who else would i root for?????



To: s martin who wrote (10418)10/30/1997 8:58:00 PM
From: Ellen  Respond to of 55532
 
it would sem that the "shorts" would certainly have covered during the interval betwen April and now.

It would also make sense that they didn't consider back then that a squeeze could be successful. They probably never would have thought that a group (this GREAT group!) of investors would hold together, strongly, for so long and through all their shenanigans!

GO RMIL!!!



To: s martin who wrote (10418)10/30/1997 9:07:00 PM
From: Kurt N  Respond to of 55532
 
Besides if they covered in April they would have been subject to capital gains tax on their profits from shorting. Rather they prefered to attempt to terminal short the company (in the hopes of paying 0 capital gains). Well, it backfired on them bigtime.

Granted, the new tax law makes this more difficult to accomplish. But there are usually 'grandfather' clauses so if the shorts were successfull they would still probably have gotten away with 0 cap gains taxes.

Kurt