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 : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (17869)	3/24/1999 11:02:00 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 18691

Then what was your point? This argument has been going on for at least three days and for much of the last two, all you have said is "I never said that". Why don't you just restate your position for the record and provide some hard data or other evidence to back it up?

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (17869)	3/25/1999 12:01:00 AM
From: BDR	Respond to of 18691

<<Wrong. I never posted that the number of shares decreased.>> Man, I really don't want to get further into this but we should be able to settle this point and move on. You said in this post: Message 8401246 "If you multiply the number of companies listed on the NYSE, the NASDAQ, and the AMEX times the number of shares of each company in the float, you get roughly the same number as you would have 2.5 years ago. In other words, there are the same number of shares available to be bought or sold as there were 2.5 years ago." (my emphasis added) So yes, you are correct, you didn't say the number of shares are decreasing. But your point, correctly stated, that more money is chasing the same number of shares appears to be incorrect, at least for the NYSE. Now can everyone back down a bit before this turns into one of those nasty, name calling threads?

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (17869)	3/25/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

Wrong. I never posted that the number of shares decreased. Fine, your claim was that the # of shares remained roughly constant. Makes no difference to the argument - didn't it occur to you to check? <<The only way for this to be consistent with increasing market-wide capitalization is for the average price per share to increase drastically. Due to stock splits, this has not and will not happen.>> Your premise is wrong; so goes your conclusion. The conclusion is correct. I won't respond further.