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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lindend who wrote (9989)	6/14/1998 12:29:00 PM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

LOCK fits in several key categories except one: It is a multi-headed monster that will not die. When looking for a GTO, you will find that the best ones go quietly with no or minimal press releases other than insider selling prints. The problem with LOCK is that too many dodos still think they have something and think it is better to own 1000 shares of a $5 stock than 100 shares of a good $50 stock. It was on its way until CNBC made that fateful announcement: Message 4854522 It is also a favorite of scumbag market makers who love the story because it's so easy to sell to PT Barnum's favorite subjects. RE the stocks that do GTO, the IRS now forces you to realize when either of two things happen: the stock is not quoted anywhere anymore or bankruptcy filing is accepted by the court. We have arguments every year with our accountants about it and win every time with persistence. One of my favorites is Children's Wonderland (CWIC) which has gone very quietly. Capeche? BTW, it is apparent that the "authorities" have begun to investigate LOCK, as several parties are very quickly distancing themselves.

To: lindend who wrote (9989)	6/14/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Respond to of 18691

>>>LOCK and Short to Zero philosophy. I'm curious to hear what people's criteria is for shorting a stock to $0 and whether LOCK meets this criteria.<<< I don't really know enough about LOCK to say. I knew it was not worth 5, or 4 per share. The announcement of a distribution partner made me nervous enough to forego entry. It's too bad the partnership turned out to be a fraud, and that I ignored my better instincts. I would have to take a deeper look at LOCK than I have in order to say it's a terminal short, although my inclination is that it is. >>>BTW, when such a stock reaches the pennies and becomes delisted, does the IRS force you to recognize the gain?<<< I understand that the Secretary of the Treasury has to declare the security "substantially worthless", at which time taxes are due. This is something new in the 1997 tax revisions, so you should talk with a tax advisor. Barb

To: lindend who wrote (9989)	6/14/1998 4:12:00 PM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

A while back I examined a bunch of stocks that were recommended as shorts in 1997 on the broken stocks thread. Many of them were (and are) great shorts, but I couldn't find a one that went to zero. Even the crappiest companies can stay afloat by selling stock (via a private placement convertible deal). In general, I don't think short-to-zero is a profitable strategy - or rather, not as profitable as shorting on hype, covering, shorting again on the next hype, covering, etc. A stock like PNDA, to take a familiar example, is a money machine. Every few months it spills out $$$ and all you have to do is pick up the money. Amazing!