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.

Technology Stocks : Cymer (CYMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jess Beltz who wrote (8383)	11/5/1997 7:36:00 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Jess: You are correct as far as I can see. It is common practice to short and retain the bonds. You have a downside in the short failing if your bonds are gone. It is like shorting against the box with interest. A common plight of IPOs , though generally not as well situated as CYMER. This was rather uncommon...late in the game so to speak. Possibly the stock matured faster than they anticipated. Bruce

To: Jess Beltz who wrote (8383)	11/5/1997 7:57:00 PM
From: Rodney Lockhart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Jess, I agree. Also Cymer hasn't traded many shares at $47 or above since the convertible notes were issued. The 3.6 million short interest was established at prices well below $47. If someone had to covert to cover a short position... he would have a loser. However, note holders may have decided to short the stock after Cymer pulled out of the conference. They would have been in a good position since they wouldn't need to worry about a short squeeze.

To: Jess Beltz who wrote (8383)	11/5/1997 8:14:00 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

You guys are missing Emile's point. His theory is the bond holders shorted the stock, which doesn't cost anything but commissions. Then, like all shorts, they hope the price drops so they can buy back the stock at a lower price, thereby making money, without touching their convertibles. The convertibles were just a backup in case the stock rose ABOVE $47. In such a case they could cover for $47. Emile said this in his post: They do not cover their short positions by converting their bonds. They cover their short positions by buying in the panicked and disoriented market. The conversion of the convertible bonds are a backup in case the plan failed--which was virtually impossible. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Emile's theory that the bond holders are the shorts, but I think it's at least plausible, and you guys were misinterpreting his theory. Can't we all just get along .... ???