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.

Biotech / Medical : Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: li3511 who wrote (7775)	10/6/2009 10:51:53 PM
From: idahoranch1	Respond to of 63324

That is actually a good strategy and the price seems right Li. If I had the cash to buy shares now and wanted to in the lower 4's, I think I'd be glad to take the $1.25 now. But, I always put my investable cash in the stock.

To: li3511 who wrote (7775)	10/7/2009 8:49:23 AM
From: me otter	Respond to of 63324

Thank you for the suggestion. I often overlook the benefits of options.

To: li3511 who wrote (7775)	10/7/2009 9:58:42 AM
From: me otter	Respond to of 63324

The only downside I can see in this strategy is the scenario where IMMU goes from its current $4.80s into the ozone because of all the things we have talked about forever on this board. I will probably be stupid and just buy it outright if we get to my price points, but thank you anyway for a good suggestion.

To: li3511 who wrote (7775)	10/9/2009 2:47:21 AM
From: menwhowipeafterpp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 63324

Me Otter: No, in that case you just keep the premium. Case closed. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but... (1) In this example of a naked put, Li is promising to buy IMMU at $5; (2) Only if the stock falls below $5 (minus his premium, which he just pocketed) does he lose money; (3) But that's o.k. It's no different than buying IMMU at $5 and watching it fall; (4) Moreover, Li now has the buying opportunity he really wanted in the first place and will most likely back up the truck. Market makers have been notorious abusers of naked shorting. In order to eliminate this abuse, "Regulation SHO" now requires them to itemize every trade. However, on August 27 when the rest of us watched 29 million shares of IMMU cross the ticker, only 6 million were reported. Nobody seems to have a plausible explanation. I posed the question to another board, and the only response was that (1) maybe the trades didn't occur during "trading hours", or (2) maybe the trades were "odd lots", that is, transactions of less than 100 shares, or (3) maybe a couple of huge trades were routed through the market center, but the market center didn't have to report them to a consolidated tape. The only possibility that makes sense is #3, but that would seem to be a blatant violation of Regulation SHO.