To: CMS27 who wrote (9092 ) 1/10/1999 8:29:00 PM From: Mama Bear Respond to
Scott, Par and management would have had to have been in on it. It's not like the company played no role in it's decline. "It is also naive to believe that the internet is not powerful enough to use as a tool either to hype or to trash a company. ""All at the same time a lot of folks decide to go short. " but I don't see you presenting any evidence of that. I was long for a long time, and I decided to go short because of the things that management said and did. I'm not sure how you support your statement, but I'd suggest you're assuming facts not in evidence. If your speaking of when it got to 18+ here's a hint: it was a great short on technicals. It was testing the high put in in early '98. It's a very low risk play to short just under the previous high, and to set a stop just over. Maximum loss is >5% and one can expect a gain of 10% or better. In this case, there was 40% available. I wouldn't be surprised to see it retest that area either. But TA has nothing to do with the company, only buying and selling patterns.
