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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JungleCat who wrote (38981)	12/7/1998 10:26:00 AM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Anyone fancy selling today for a quick trade on a pull-back from the highs.

To: JungleCat who wrote (38981)	12/7/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: Kenya AA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Cramer's choking <ggggg> . . . . Wrong! Rear Echelon Revelations: Cramer Responds on WavePhore By James J. Cramer 12/7/98 9:31 AM ET When a stock doubles overnight, the first thing I do is presume there could be a short squeeze going on. I think that because in my lifetime, I have not seen that many stocks double in a day or two, except when they have been squeezed up. Last week, before I went on CNBC, I was given a set of documents about a company called WavePhore (WAVO:Nasdaq). I read through them and did not see anything that would have led me to believe that this stock should have gone from 5 to 15 in the last month. So, I asked my trader to find out if WavePhore could be "borrowed," and whether 25,000 shares were available. Before you short a stock, you must see if it can be borrowed because you are selling that borrowed stock. (If you owned it, you would have a long, not a short sale.) My trader called me back a moment later to tell me that WavePhore could not be shorted because it could not be borrowed. In other words, Goldman Sachs would not allow me to short the stock, because after I sold it, Goldman would not be able to send out any shares from its vault to complete the trade. Why the big explanation about my recent Squawk Box appearance? It seems that my public discussion of how to short a stock has elicited all kinds of angry reactions from WavePhore and its shareholders. I have become the target of death threats on Yahoo! bulletin boards. The company, in issuing a press release about my CNBC appearance, has referred my comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission and Nasdaq and reporters have called wondering what happened. Moreover, as I said on CNBC, I did not have and do not have a position -- long or short -- in WavePhore. As a columnist, I have backed the Internet revolution like nobody else. I believed in stocks like Yahoo! (YHOO:Nasdaq) last year, well before it was fashionable. But I have also tried to point out the games that the big boys sometimes play. In this case, I was doing my best to give an example of how a short squeeze can occur. To me that seemed like a valuable piece of information that the marketplace should know about before it leapt in to buy a stock that had just moved from 5 to 15. As many Internet-related stocks have had similar bolts, and I fear that the people who watch CNBC will get gaffed when the squeezes on these stocks subside, I wanted to be sure people know why I think, in part, these stocks are ramping in this fashion. I never intended to short WavePhore -- I couldn't anyway, it would never be allowed. My sole point was to illustrate to those who do not know the mechanics of the business of stock trading that this stock was "tight," which often leads to a spike until enough stock can be created or sold. (On Dec. 2, the day that I spoke, C. Roland Hayden, a director, filed to sell 50,000, by the way.) Since then, David Deeds, the president and CEO of WavePhore, has called for an investigation of these events by the SEC and Nasdaq because the stock fell significantly after the interview. As I neither shorted WavePhore's stock nor spoke to anyone in the investment community about my questions for WavePhore, such an investigation seems warrantless. In fact, I don't care where WavePhore trades. I do want to try to explain why I believe that some of these bizarre moves on Internet-related companies can't be justified just on fundamentals.