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 : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Susan G who wrote (785)	1/12/1999 2:35:00 PM
From: Jay Plummer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

Susan, GNET is trying to bust out of resistance at 105. If it does it might test the open. Just need to other portal stocks to act right. Jay P.S. There she blows 2:35pm

To: Susan G who wrote (785)	1/12/1999 7:30:00 PM
From: appro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28311

>>spreads have been absurd<< Caveat emptor. I noticed that also Susan. My understanding is that there is no restraint on Nasdaq market-makers other than their own membership "guideline" to keep spreads under 5%. Of course they may not conspire for anti-competitive ends. In the so called fast markets with high volatility, I can be a bit forgiving. I once complained to Nasdaq that an $8 stock I wanted to buy "always" had a $1.00 spread. I also complained to the CFO of the company in question. There was more involved as I felt the tape was being "painted" with a buy and sell at the end of each day to create the impression of price movement where there was none. The net result was a lot of excuses. I never bought the stock. You can read more at: nasdaqlitigation.com In particular, the paragraph at "Full text" re the Nature of the Action says, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This Action arose from the consolidation before this Court of more than thirty separate antitrust actions filed beginning in May 1994 in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Plaintiffs' claims are set forth in the Second Amended Refiled Consolidated Complaint ("the Complaint"). The Complaint alleges that the defendants and others successfully conspired to increase and fix the "spreads" paid by plaintiffs and the members of the Class in connection with purchases and sales of Class Securities. The spread is the difference between the bid and the ask price quoted for a security, and allegedly represents a transaction cost which buyers and sellers pay when trading securities on Nasdaq. Plaintiffs contend that defendants increased spreads for the Class Securities by, among other means, avoiding odd-eighth bid and ask quotations for the securities (thereby ensuring that the minimum spread would be one quarter of a dollar); following the spread set by a leading market-maker in a security; and exerting pressure to prevent market-makers from introducing bid and ask quotations that would have the effect of reducing the spread for a security. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' assertedly unlawful conduct, plaintiffs and Class members were injured by paying excessive transaction costs for purchases and sales of Class Securities. Plaintiffs seek to recover treble damages for the Class, together with reimbursement of costs, an award of attorneys' fees, and an injunction. Defendants have vigorously denied all of plaintiffs' allegations, asserted many affirmative defenses, and had filed motions, which were pending at the time the Subsequent Settlement was reached (see paragraph 9), seeking to dismiss all claims and also challenging the economic and damage theories advanced by plaintiffs. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<