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.

Non-Tech : PERFUMANIA.COM . . PRFM . . .FOR LONGS ONLY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: snerd who wrote (454)	1/28/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: melinda abplanalp	Respond to of 2489

Ya Snerd...I was thinking the same thing. Sounds like a short. Rande Is said they would show up soon. Well looks like they arrived.

To: snerd who wrote (454)	1/28/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: The Saint	Respond to of 2489

BFLY ON CNBC TOMORROW The Saint

To: snerd who wrote (454)	1/28/1999 1:49:00 AM
From: Steve Research	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2489

Snerd, I would never have the sheer BALLS to short a stock a stock like this, and beleive be when I tell you that I am not trying to scare the stock lower ( I would never flatter myself with having that kind of power) I am just bringing up some obvious oversights on this thread, and have been sharing my thoughts here and there so I figured I would continue. There are people out there who make money selling stocks short, in fact a bet a good percentage of the sells we saw today weren't natural sellers, they were people with alot of capital going short the stock, you can't get a good read on short positions because they aren't updated on a daily basis and can change drastically from day to day. Snerd, it's never this EASY, there is always HUGE risk on a stock that quadruples in a month. If someone said to me "lend me money and I will pay you 400% interest a month I would think there has to be SERIOUS risk it's just simple economics, there MUST be risk when we are talking about these kinds of returns...the market is VERY efficient. AAGP, active apparal group was $1/2, then $12, then $25, and now its been trading in the $6 range for a long time. Everyone KNOWS the site is opening on FEB. 1st, it is no secret, It should be priced into the stock right now because EVERYONE KNOWS IT ALREADY and the market is very efficient. People are playing this one like the stock is GUARANTEED to go higher when the site opens, that would be the case if no one else knew about it. It's like when INTEL is going to report earnings and the estimates are for .90 and the whisper estimate is $1.00. INTEL reports $1.00, and the stock doesn't move because everyone knew it already--it was factored into the price already. HOWEVER, HERE IS WHERE I COULD GO WRONG: maybe everyone doesn't know (which is possible because I haven't really heard much about the stock on the news or from people just discussing it) and PRFM's web-site won't be priced into the stock until the PR blitz hits (and then everyone, really EVERYONE knows about the site) and at THAT point the market becomes efficient and moves the stock up to $20. Now, If THAT happens then it shows me that stocks like PRFM have to be treated differently because the retail investor (who I would assume is responsible for the stock run up) isn't as efficient as the institutional investor. The Inst.Inv. would have already had the web site priced into the stock price, in fact it would have been priced in on the day they made the first announcement. All I AM saying is that what I said above is on my mind. At this point, a 100% gain would have the stock going to $18, it was much easier watching the stock go from $2 1/2 to $5 and from $5 to almost $10. So for ME, to try to get the stock to double AGAIN is too risky. The Bulls make money, the Bears make money but the pigs always get slaughtered-- had to take it off the table today guys.