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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (38496)	1/27/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: Ditchdigger	Respond to of 55532

UNDERSTANDING MARGIN Maintenance Call(from Datek homepage) At present your account requires additional funds as indicated on the front of this notice in the Amount Due column. To satisfy this requirement you must promptly send these funds to us for credit to your account. In the event that the necessary funds are not received by us by the "Date Due", we will be required to liquidate sufficient securities in your account to satisfy the call due at the time of liquidation and to hold you responsible for any resulting deficiency. **Almost sounds like "long for late delivery" as Mork put it..DD

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (38496)	1/27/1998 9:03:00 AM
From: FTJoe	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 55532

This makes perfect sense to me. I would have though the broker he deals with would have the right to sell shares in his account to cover of replacement..DD It makes perfect sense except for why the broker didn't force a cover? ;-) Maybe it wasn't long for delayed delivery after all? It surely must be Canada, I would think a US firm would require settlement within 3 days. Note the answer "No" applies to shorting the stock, not necessarily where the broker is located. Assuming it was Canada, why use a canadian firm unless it was to be able to short a US BB stock? Many assumptions on my part, but my point is this may not be the entire story and in spite of your first sentence, your second sentence implies it doesn't make perfect sense.

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (38496)	1/27/1998 9:06:00 AM
From: DDuncan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

I wonder if Vegas is giving odds on this stock. Do we have any money in the bank yet, and a date for trading? Don't get to read the thread much anymore.

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (38496)	1/27/1998 9:21:00 AM
From: tonto	Respond to of 55532

DD, did you look for the company's response?

To: Ditchdigger who wrote (38496)	1/27/1998 9:35:00 AM
From: Just My Opinion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

DD: How does a person sell someone else's shares through his account? The first person does not have legal ownership of those shares, so IMO he is selling them short. How would a broker be able to sell Zapara's shares without Zapara's permission? (I interprate your post to say that the broker would sell the shares in Zapara's acount to cover Mork's, problem) It seems to me, that their is something called a margin call, and when Mork got into problems, the brokers would make that margin call. This whole deal stinks to me, and maybe if the Zapara Mork thing does go to trial, the whole story will come out. Then all speculation will be over with. al EDIT: I also think that under normal circumtances, if Mork was unable to cove, the firm would have covered, for him. Then they would have goneafter HIM, in court. I think that the firm is responsible, ultimately, for the covering of the securities, and then they go after the wayward client. al