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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hpeace who wrote (13874)	1/17/1998 11:24:00 PM
From: Rick Slemmer	Respond to of 97611

rick, I've seen days that sellers were lined up and no buyers. your assumptions don't hold. I'll bet there were buyers prepared to pay a much lower price than was asked at the time. There are always buyers as long as the security has some intrinsic value. The price alone is what keeps them from buying. The only time there are no buyers is when the security is worthless (try selling January options on Tuesday and see how far you get). Even Bre-X had buyers at some subterranean level, if based only on the value of the lamps and desks in the offices. if buyers and seller were in a equilibrium like you say then you don't need specialist You still don't get it; the specialists and market makers ARE the buyers and sellers. One more time, by the numbers: 1. Bob has money, wants stock. 2. Market maker has stock, will take money for it. 3. Bob and market maker agree on price. 4. Money and stock change hands (not too complicated, so far, right?). 5. Market maker has money, wants stock. 6. Sarah has stock, will take money for it. 7. Sarah and market maker agree on price. 8. Money and stock change hands. This is TWO transactions, not one: Bob and the market maker; Sarah and the market maker. By the way, has this been posted yet? news.com. RS