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.

Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (391)	10/20/1998 10:11:00 PM
From: Khris Vogel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

I also asked for your explanation as to how LBOR came to be targetted, if you have a better one. Are you perhaps implying that all of this is the doing of a single disgruntled ex-employee (that "ceotips" guy) who somehow managed to bend the ear of some prominent financial analysts? ceotips has the ear of a prominent financial analysts? Who would be that stupid? Forget ceotips, I have. To be honest, that posting had little basis in reality in the first place and did not contribute to any downward pressure on the stock price, as it was heavily discounted. The only time it keeps rearing its ugly head is when shorts bring it up out of the swamp again. Believe me, Kevin, ceotips is not a player at any level and is not worthy of discussion (which is why I didn't bother to ignore that old post in the first place). Rather than a disgruntled former employee, it is strongly my opinion that there indeed was a concerted effort by those w/ significant short positions to help drive the price of the stock down. Was it picked randomly? No, I don't think so. What I do think happened is that likely somebody ran a screen for stocks w/ high trailing PE's w/ significant price run-ups (i.e., usually the most vulnerable of the vulnerable). Then from such a screen, there likely was more research into the various stocks passing the screens, w/ those performing them saying "hey, I can exploit this and I can exploit that," and that's likely where the ball started to roll. Crazy or improbable? Then ask Pink, Goldfinger, or Wexler how the stock came to their attention in the first place. And as long as you are at it, ask them which charges they've used as currency have yet to be substantiated, because as time goes by, in the absense of such substantiation, is it not reasonable to conclude that the charges are less and less likely to be true? If this isn't true, then why are we still w/o substantiation of any of their allegations? . I asked, "So...how would one clear up the allegations...?" Your answer: A good question, but I don't recall seeing anything about an audit in the release mentioning Arthur Andersen. (Don't know much about Seidman's reputation.) I didn't understand your answer. Could you run that one past me again? You own the Yahoo LBOR board Hardly. . I wrote "Off of the top of my head, I can only think of one such posting, and when I questioned the poster on his source, he stated that he had contacts w/ NYSE employees." You responded, So in other words if I'd lied and said something similar you'd have been happy and gone away? No, that's not what was said. You said that comments on the Yahoo board had been made as to the listing being a done deal. To which, I said that one person made a claim. I asked him for his source. He replied (not w/ a specific name, mind you, but he did give an answer). I said 'fine'. But nowhere did I say or otherwise imply that I relied on that person's response as factual, as I have no way to verify it. You will note even in the case of good news for LBOR longs, I still sought out substantiation. For you to imply otherwise is not correct.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (391)	10/21/1998 1:15:00 AM
From: Khris Vogel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19428

And, hey, Kevin - saved this one for you: Buried in the midst of the o/s earnings report is a small blurb, it was announced that it is official that LBOR is making the move over to the NYSE. Gosh - you think maybe, just maybe, that NYSE officials would have looked long and hard at LBOR in the midst of all the cute little allegations generated by the shorts and talked extensively w/ Arthur Andersen during the process? Seems somewhat prudent to me that they would, as they'd not want to knowingly sully the rep of the exchange w/ questionable cos. So...maybe acceptance by the NYSE puts one more nail in the coffin of there not being a heck of a lot of validity to the "creative writing" going on around these parts, you think?