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 : JAWS;A P/E of 2 with 150%/yr Erngs Growth!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Randomm who wrote (1096)	5/4/1998 6:17:00 PM
From: del clark	Respond to of 4230

I believe the volume high but not truly 1.4 million. The volume is false with this company. As per TGSK: Thank you for your interest in Tigershark Enterprises, Inc. (OTC BB: TGSK). Based on the publicly available information and the fact that Tigershark only has 2.2 million shares in the float, which is a relatively small amount for any company, the purported daily volume is incredible. Especially considering more and more investors are buying Tigershark's stock with the intention to put it away for two or three years and let the Company mature. Nevertheless, if you were to follow Tigershark's trading on a tick-by-tick basis, even a Level II machine, you would start to see immediately that a lot of the volume is false. This gets us to the whole Nasdaq/OTC market maker system. Everytime a share exchanges hands, whether its with the real buyer/seller or between market makers, it is reported. For example, let's say you wanted to buy 5,000 shares. You place your order for 5,000 with your broker who submits it to his or her favorite market maker. This market maker doesn't have the stock or doesn't want to fill the order so he goes to market maker B, who does the same and goes to market maker C, and so on and so on until someone decides to part with the stock and fill the order. Well, the order isn't filled efficiently. Market maker D sells to market maker C who sells to market maker B who sells to market maker A who sells to you. All of a sudden your 5,000 shares prints as five 5,000 share trades. Hence, reported volume is 25,000, not the actual 5,000. Seeing that the number of market makers in Tigershark has swollen from one to 27 in just the past two months you can see start to see where these huge numbers are coming from. On top of that there is growing evidence that a large short position may exist in Tigershark's stock, meaning that market makers and various traders have sold stock that simply doesn't exist. Hence, there may be three or four million shares out there trading, but only 2.2 million have been authorized. If this does prove to be correct, Tigershark's stock could become very volatile and potentially explosive to the upside if the obvious buying in the stock continues. I hope that helps answer your questions. We estimately 70-80% of the gross daily volume is strictly inter-market maker trades. Just today, for example, after the market closed market makers shuffled another 300,000 shares, or the equivelent of 30% of the days volume AFTER the market closed. If you have any further questions, or need any additional explanation, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, J. Scott Sitra Tigershark Investor Relations jscott@sitra.com (512) 453-3817 (512) 453-7553 fax P. O. Box 50404 Austin, Texas 78763 sitra.com

To: Randomm who wrote (1096)	5/4/1998 9:13:00 PM
From: Dave Gore	Respond to of 4230

Thanks Scott for posting the info on the artificial volume...very informative and clear. Sounds like if a short IS developing, we should all hold tight. Also the information on protected distributor territories, and possibilites of expansion of the Mercury product line here in the US is great info. I continue to see only positives here DAVE PS-- please USA and ZTECH, we are on the same team here. I welcome anyone who adds information, as we get new investors all the time who will only read the last few posts before making a decision. As long as we don't get too repetitive that is great. I especially welcome the very clear explanations of Scott Sitra.