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.

Technology Stocks : Forecross Corporation : Y/2000 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ruyi who wrote (1398)	9/6/1998 8:19:00 PM
From: lef	Respond to of 1654

To Doug McLeod The explanation that J.D.R.is giving for the crossing of stock is bazaar and twisted but then again we are dealing with certain exchange members who appear to be capable of the mystical.Being a former managing director and head listed trader at MLPFS and prior to that having the same position at Lehman Bros., I feel that I can speak with some authority about trading stocks.There are three ways to cross stock and I am talking about any size trade whether it be 1000 shares or millions of shares.1)buyer and seller agree on price for the entire piece 2)the dealer steps in and agrees to accommodate the buyer or seller and inventories part of the trade i.e the dealer goes long or short somepart of the piece.3)the dealer takes the whole other side of the trade i.e.the dealer goes long or short the whole piece.Now the fellows at Whitelips and Trembling Ltd.that J.D.R. seems to be trading with most probably don't have the desire or the capital to accommodate a roundlot. To be honest with all of you on this post I get a big kick out of those terribly frigthenig warnings regarding Countdowns ,Deathwatches and immanent Chapter X11 filings. By God you surely think that all the longs just fell out of a tree.If that be the case J.D.R and Juri you probably stand to make two or three thousand apiece, I say that because both of you refuse to take Mr.Addington,s very generous wager. If it were me I'D take the bet and go to Whitelips and see if they would step out on a limb and short me 50 shares to round off my block. REGARDS, LOU FERRARI .

To: Ruyi who wrote (1398)	9/7/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: AD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1654

Federal Y2K fixes estimated at $5.4B By Matt Hamblen (Online News, 09/04/98 04:37 PM) More than half of the critical computer systems run by the federal government are considered year 2000-compliant, according to a quarterly report released today by the Office of Management and Budget. But even though the report pointed out systems that are expected to be able to process data accurately during the transition to Jan. 1, 2000, the OMB also cited some agencies whose compliance work is still lagging. The agency added one more entry this month to the list of six laggards it identified in its June report: the Department of State. Senior officials at the seven departments and agencies that need the most help met Wednesday with Vice President Al Gore. He told the officials to report back to him in a month on their plans to meet a March 31, 1999, deadline. The report also said the expected federal cost of fixing systems for year 2000 is now $5.4 billion, up from $5 billion in the last OMB quarterly report issued in June. That report found only 40% of federal critical systems were deemed compliant, compared with the 50% in the current report. The Defense and Transportation departments are generally considered the most vulnerable because of the enormous numbers of systems they maintain and the critical nature of defense and transportation technology. The DOD has 2,075 mission-critical systems and has repaired and implemented changes to only 27% of them. DOD expects to spend nearly $2 billion to do the job. The Transportation Department has 297 mission critical systems and has repaired and implemented only 11% of those systems, the OMB said. It expects to spend $213 million on the work.