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: stanley new who wrote (2750)	9/6/1998 6:15:00 PM
From: blash	Respond to of 4230

Stan..... I'm certainly not an expert on this, but this question has been addressed before by Cardshark on the Yahoo thread. Voluntary coverage by a short position, naked or legal, can quickly transition to a situation where it simply happens at whatever price by the market maker or broker. If the client won't or can't cover, he will become the object of serious legal proceedings, possibly jail. There is a chain of financial responsibility from market maker, broker and clearing firm (not sure of the sequence) on the cover side. If they all fail, then there is a like chain on the other side. If all fail, then your account is protected to a certain amount ($100,000, I think, by the SIPC). In sum, there is a lot of financial protection for your investment. With regards to the price of the stock, my firm belief is that FMV will be the final resting price but I think we are boarding a roller coaster with the shorts providing the energy to take this stock well above the FMV. Nobody knows how fast and how high things will go, but if you don't at least acknowledge the possibility (in my view, probability) that this stock has greater potential than you have mentioned, then you may sell much too soon.

To: stanley new who wrote (2750)	9/6/1998 8:16:00 PM
From: flightlessbird	Respond to of 4230

Stanley New re: short squeeze . . . You sound like a skeptic at heart which is fine. I have no problems with that. But you do ask for a reason why people are talking $20, $50 or $100. Here it is. Nobody has ever heard of a short position that has exceeded the float before. Even the most violent squeezes have ranged from a short position between 33% (IOM) to 55% (AMZN) to perhaps higher (KTEL). But certainly nobody has ever heard of a short position larger than the float. Now imagine a short position speculated to be 2-3 TIMES the float. Now you have your reason why others believe it. You may be skeptical. You may not believe it. You may not accept it. But look at the 5 year chart on PRST in which the company's fundamentals were poor at best but ran from 6 to 208 (pre-split) on one of the most widely talked about short squeezes any where. PRST by the way is believed to have not had a short position NEARLY as severe as JAWS. Look at the recent move of KTEL as it went from 5 to 80 (pre-split). A short squeeze is a true supernatural occurrence, but don't honestly kid yourself that a short squeeze would take this stock to $10. A true, pure short squeeze under these conditions will be breathtaking and could perhaps leave KTEL in the dust. Do some research on short squeezes before you speak any further on the subject. Like I said, being skeptical is fine. I respect that. If you don't believe the risk/reward ratio is worth it here, please DON'T invest. But you asked why . . . and I have answered. I can assure that some very, very bright people know exactly what will make this short squeeze spectacular. In case you're unaware, one indidual owns 2.9 million shares. An institution owns 700k shares. A director (Moody) owns 400k shares. Yahoo investors own 3.5 million estimated shares (see home.inreach.com. And from many people that I and others talk to informally, there are another 3-4 million shares out there in larger hands that do NOT post on yahoo. Add to that about 600 shareholders that nobody even KNOWS how many shares they own. Now consider that the float is 3.3 million shares. If this math still does not convince you, then I suggest you focus on the fundamentals and decide if it is still worth investing. But for those that understand this situation, $50 or higher is certainly not out of the question for a pure short squeeze. History MORE than documents the necessary support for that claim.

To: stanley new who wrote (2750)	9/6/1998 8:41:00 PM
From: Jim Johnson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4230

Stanley, See post #2611 I believe that is the correct one. It is a somewhat different scenario, but close to home just the same. People here, such as flightless, have been keeping track of this for quite some time, myself included. The very radical short is there...it has already happened....now just the results remain to be known. Jim J