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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: On the QT who wrote (91554)	1/26/1999 8:56:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

QT, unless you are referring to something I somehow missed, I was part of that discussion and pointed out a fundamental flaw. To wit: the "analysis" made some very serious logical errors -- assumptions unsupported by any fact or observation. Specifically, the argument assumed away the issue of volume effects on price movement. Thus, the question was effectively begged, because that assumption is the heart of the dispute. That criticism was never met. In effect the poster assumed that dropping a price would necessarily create an irreversible avalanche effect allowing the shorter to buy much larger volumes of stock at the low end without causing the stock to rise. That is, a relatively smaller volume of trades on the sell side creates a greater downward pressure on stock prices than a similar upward pressure on the buy side. All of the "manipulation" schemes require that this assumption be true, but there is not one whit of evidence in favor of it. And yes, my most recent comments were tongue in cheek. TTFN, CTC