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 : 2012 Biotech Charity Contest -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BulbaMan who wrote (128)	1/11/2012 2:59:49 AM
From: Robohogs	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 513

I am more amused than anything. Of course, watch Dew buy 1000 shares at mkt in pink sheets at contest end! I did find Dew's tone offensive in his initial post but I am a sensitive guy! Jon

To: BulbaMan who wrote (128)	1/11/2012 11:22:04 AM
From: pgo-neil	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 513

A sentence at the end of item 8 in our board introduction says, " ...However, if other contestants strongly object to a particular stock being eligible because it's substantially illiquid or trades at a super-low price, the stock will be ineligible." Looking at the volume and last trade date of the pink sheet, I think this looks like an illiquid stock. Clearly a case can be made for ineligibility of the pink sheet, but not the Stockholm shares. Dew's scenario for a limit order of ~1000 shares after Stockholm is closed is possible, but verification of this postulate is unlikely. Perhaps there is a precise definition we could apply to avoid subjective assessment for this condition? Actually, I appreciate out of the box approaches like this one and learn from them. I had no idea of the price inefficiencies on this class of stocks... nor of the magnified December effect on the Stockholm Exchange. So, assuming I could purchase them, at an attractive arbitraged price, I am less than comfortable that an exit strategy would also be as convenient. In years past, Subject 54496 the rules included explicit statements that touch on the issues: >"Florida ballots, or Precision v. Accuracy" Portfolios with performance within 2% of each other are considered "tied". (Rounding errors, currency conversions, .....) < The capture between the closing pink price on 19 December and the closing Stockholm price on 30 December is 4.3 percent. Assuming consistent use of closing price on the USD/SEK, it is hard to see how error creeps in at anything close to 4%. Even using daily high/low excursions for this period time it is ~1%. >"Insider trading" We're pretty relaxed about getting the entries in. Everyone gets the benefit/penalty of year end closing prices for valuation. If you procrastinate and one of your stocks has a big jump perhaps it is better left to the "comments section".< I always thought this bright line was pretty clear and recognized our Swedish friend's entry as funning the system rather than gaming it. Although of course a moderator had to recognize it as such and declare action. Last, tone... In my limited experience with active moderation, any objection that starts out with, "I don't like..." is an indicator of a less than compelling argument. There are reasons for the request, although it took Dew a couple of iterations to flesh them out and some are at this point untestable. Probably starting with, "May it please the moderator," would seem too unctuous, but there are middle grounds of tone for stating a case. Politeness and care in imputing negative actions to a moderator are important for this reason: >"John Marshall Says So" 'The moderator shall have the sole authority to decide any question arising out of the conduct of the contest.' < So, rather than ad hoc change, I view it as an administrative adjustment. Strangely this morning when I went to look up Mike Murphy's introductions, I had remembered the first guideline ["Golden Rule"] as being, "All is done in amity, conscience, comity and commonsense." The actual statement is, >"Golden rule" All is to be done with conscience, comity and common sense. This is SI biotech, not Yahoo. < Sadly the amity is missing. But at least the common sense is still there. Best, graham --