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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (9228)	10/23/1998 8:47:00 AM
From: wonk	Respond to of 26163

Pretty tough to have a short squeeze when holders of formerly restricted shares and / or insiders continue to sell. biz.yahoo.com

To: tonto who wrote (9228)	10/23/1998 10:56:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Why does a company lend shares? What is the business reason for doing so? I can think of no business reason to do so. Yet 480,000 shares were indeed lent, according to the article. Of course the only reason one would want to borrow shares is so that one could short 'em. This suggests that Andy Mann, the borrower, had good reason to think the stock price would drop. It's absurd to imagine that the company didn't know why he wanted the loan, so I believe we must surmise that they, too, felt share price was about to suffer. And of course everyone knows that heavy shorting is an almost invariable consequence of Reg-S deals. But why didn't Sylver file an 8-K? This brings us to another point. Sylver claims that Mann had the labels lifted immediately and sold the stock on the open market. But if it were only restricted for 40 days, why would that be a risk worth taking? In the meanwhile, First Concorde, Whitecliffe, or Shoreline, or any combination of the three, could have shorted against the stock anyway. IF it's true that the stock in question had a 40 day restriction, then it would seem that it's not restricted any longer. Perhaps this explains the DTC's stance in the matter. So, in my view at least, the whole business boils down to a single question: Did Mike Sylver get the $1,000,000 (or the equivalent thereof) that he was supposed to be paid? I fail utterly to understand why this question, and evident controversy, should be used as an excuse deliberately to provoke a short squeeze.