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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (5695)	1/10/1999 11:53:00 PM
From: Paul Senior	Respond to of 78735

Aside: Favorable recommendations by Latin American fund manager reported in Barron's interview this weekend regarding some stocks mentioned here recently: UBB and BLX. Also positives on a couple of "Little bras". Paul Senior

To: Paul Senior who wrote (5695)	1/11/1999 12:18:00 AM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78735

Paul, >[IOM crash] Because my recollection is different >from Jurgis's. You owe me big - I looked up June 1996 archives of the IOM thread. :-) You are right, the turning point was NOT a revenue shortfall. It was the secondary offering for institutional investors below market price. However, there was no sudden "death blow" top. The stock started trading down, then Cabbott newsletter got compromised, then there was revenue shortfall or quality problems (I don't remember which) in Europe. If you have time to read 50K messages, you can figure it all out yourself. :-) I doubt if short sellers made a lot of money on IOM. It is down 2/3 from the top. Since the ascent was fast, it's unlikely you would have shorted at the top. If you shorted at $18, which was the offering price of the secondary, you would have made ~$7-8. It depends whether you consider that worth your risk. IMO, shorting a broken stock is less risky and ultimately more profitable. But then, most Internet companies have farther to fall. :-) Jurgis