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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Solv Ex (SOLVD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TheDuke who wrote (5174)	12/4/1997 5:14:00 PM
From: Sid Turtlman	Respond to of 6735

TheDuke: I'm confused. First, all the longs complained that those bearish on a company could short without borrowing the stock (actually, it is legal for market makers to do this) and never cover if the stock went to zero, thereby avoiding taxes on the gains (in other words, turn it into a "terminal short".) Now you seem to be complaining that a market maker that you think may have done some naked shorts may be trying to cover before the stock goes to zero, thereby obligating itself to pay taxes. So what is the problem? What are you complaining about? You can't have it both ways. If Bear Stearns really wants to buy the stock (beats me as to why), it can get all it wants under a buck now. Of course, it could run into some competition from Barb at $.02