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 : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (6444)	3/7/1998 8:08:00 PM
From: alan miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

"This is a standard argument that is presented on just about every Asensio related thread, and is exactly on schedule." I most strongly suggest doing research on the stock. FWIW, Asensio doesn't matter in this case. Most of the rebuttals thus far have been far too biased, IMO. regards, am

To: Mama Bear who wrote (6444)	3/7/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: flightlessbird	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Babs: if you believe that a short position at $5 could ever even remotely equate to the risk level of his other short positions, most of which occurred at $20 or higher (with Diana at $100), then you have truly been blinded. There are significant percentage differences here that you seem to not be able to appreciate. The difference between a significant price move on a $25 stock compared to one on a $5 stock is the difference between a "simple loss" and "catastrophic loss". Regardless of what your opinion is on any post-decision valuation, the potential was/is clearly there for a $5 short position to suffer 200%+ losses should KRY prove victorious in its claims for Las Cristinas. This possibility simply did not exist in any of his prior picks as his short position was entered significantly higher. Even if his other short picks turned against him sharply (as many did), he could exit comfortably at a 25% loss or maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, a 50% loss. Not here. He was already down 60% before a decision had even come!! Think Babs Think!! A $5 short position is NOT LIKE ANY OTHER SHORT POSITION HE HAS TAKEN BEFORE. Taking a large short position in a very low-priced stock with explosive potential is the RISKIEST position existent. At least with a risky long position, your loss is limited to 100%!!!!! Now while you're at it, go ask Mr. A. what the margin rules are on his account that would result in an AUTOMATIC LIQUIDATION to meet margin requirements. If you can't understand this basic risk analysis, then you truly better buckle up. Mr. A. will look out for himself before he looks out for anybody else. Now THAT is a bet with zero risk.