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 : PKGP (Packaging Plus) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John S. Baker who wrote (4187)	6/25/1998 9:59:00 AM
From: Zbyte	Respond to of 4783

I find it quite interesting that the last five sales have all been in increment of 10,000...ÿ Now we have had a bunch of little sells and the bid move down...ÿ Yesterday we had nothing but huge buys for the first 2 hours and the price remained the same...ÿ Hmmm..ÿ They are pretty obvious with what they are doing...ÿ IMHOÿ Jeffÿ Do not be discouraged we are watching a HUGE hole being dug...

To: John S. Baker who wrote (4187)	6/25/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: blash	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4783

JSb...Thanks for the response. I'm a faithful reader of this thread and, as you stated, others have wondered if the "new" shares may somehow be used to replace the "old". Assuming this is possible, the Naked Short problem is perpetuated and will never be resolved until a percentage of the shareholders which is greater than the short position try to sell their shares in unison. Admittedly, this is unlikely. I've probably pondered over this unneccesarily, but other than the National Debt, I know of few situations where something can be created out of nothing. Now if we assume that "new" can't replace "old", then there will be a lot of investor carnage unless there is some type of insurance that will cover us. Thanks again for taking the time answering my questions.

To: John S. Baker who wrote (4187)	6/25/1998 10:06:00 AM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4783

I am still of the opinion that whatever short position remains in old PKGP can be covered by purchases of whatever is the equivalent trading instrument for the company, Packaging Plus. Thus, any shorters who have not covered by June 30 with purchases of PKGP will, after June 30, be able to cover with NEW Packaging Plus stock, XXXX. Think about it for a moment, if the requirement were perfectly rigid and it was mandatory that a short of PKGP must be covered with a purchase of PKGP(and only that item), then a slick shorter on the morning of July 1 could say: "I am trying to cover, to meet my obligation, but they won't sell me PKGP anymore...So how can you expect me to cover". Now, does that logic make sense to anyone? Thus, I gots to believe that outstanding short positions of PKGP at close of trading on June 30, can/must be covered by purchase of new Packaging Plus stock, XXXX Then again, the government makes these rules don't they. TG