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 : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (4634)	11/2/1998 9:31:00 AM
From: John Curtis	Respond to of 27311

I.N.: I couldn't say it any better than that. In light of zero announcements out of VLNC it's entirely logical to conclude that the MM's were doing their part to maintain the dynamic of VLNC's market. ;-) Too also, it's logical to assume that folks who may have come in at lower levels, ie. high $3's to low $4's, would be looking at a goodly profit, and once the rise became clearly unsustainable....why.....hell, I can't quibble about taking a profit. Profit, after all, is profit. Bottom Line? The volume surge, and brief rise, is indicative of the interest in VLNC that's currently hanging out on the sidelines watching intently. This is a good thing. Now we need some corporate news to re-initiate and sustain the surge we longs are buckled up to ride. Regards! John~

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (4634)	11/2/1998 10:17:00 AM
From: Greg Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

IN Vester, you write: >>Where do the shares come from when lots of demand appears? The answer in part is that the MM's are willing to short the stock in order to make a market when excess demand apprears This produces a market gravity whereby when the buying frenzy subsides, the price will naturally fall to the point at which the MM's can cover their short position<< How can this be? Why would a MM risk shorting a stock for which the demand to buy was increasing? It seems to me that the benefit of commissions would be overshadowed by the liability of covering if the stock was genuinely taking off. And how could a price be expected to just "naturally fall" after the "buying frenzy"? I don't get it.