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 : CAVALRY'S SHORT BUSTERS - MAGIC EIGHTBALLS PICKS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cavalry who wrote (1)	9/7/1998 4:58:00 PM
From: Just My Opinion	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1637

cav: The problem as I have see it with short squeezes that originate on SI, is twofold. 1. The people involved (shareholders) are usually people with "hamburger" pockets, and "hamburger" dreams. The squeezes usually have a bunch of people with a few thousand shares apiece, and as soon as they make 50 cents or so, they bail. They let the shorts out of the trap, and that's the end of it. They just don't have the money behind them to keep the pressure on, and so they take what they can get. 2. This is probably an even bigger problem, and it stems from the companies. They always seem to sell into the rise, and they kill the squeeze themselves. IMO, if the companies would just sit back and wait, they cold sell near the top, and turn themselves into a strong company. The shareholders wouldn't be hurt IMO, because then they have positions in companies that have a real chance of success. See, IMO huge short positions don't develop in "good" companies, because only a schmuck (in general) would short a "good" company. So they prey on the weaker ones. The BB's are fertile ground for this because the SEC facilitates the shorting, IMO by having lax rules. In addition, these companies are weak financially, (generally) if they weren't, they wouldn't be BB stocks. So, IMO these things make a short squeeze difficult for any kind of a big number for the BB's. I do believe that there are a lot of "mini" squeezes. For ex: midl, infe, zulu, csma, aipn, however they all fell back, and IMO it was for the reasons I stated. If a person could get people involved that have (say) "millions", and these people were the ones that engineered a squeeze, then I think it could be different, as long as the company played ball. See, the company is always the wild card, IMO. I think the bulk of the stock has to be controlled by less people, not more. (there's less chance of the scared rabbit syndrome) These are just my thoughts, and I am open to discussion about it. One last thing, I also believe that the ground work must be carried out in secret, and not a word can be discussed about it in public, until the trap is sprung.