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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Thermoelectric - SOFC Fuel cells (GLE:TSE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Hamlin who wrote (586)	4/17/1999 11:15:00 AM
From: Gulo	Respond to of 6016

I believe it is absolutely false that MOST warrant holders would short the stock to lock in profits during the last week or so. I am sure that SOME did. First of all, the warrants sometimes traded at a premium to their exercise value, especially during the spikes. At those times it would make more sense to simply sell the warrant. On another front, many retail investors, such as myself, invest primarily through their Registered plans, where shorting is not available. Many others simply don't avail themselves of the opportunity to short. Of course, there were a lot more warrant holders over the course of the week because warrants changed hands frequently. They couldn't all short GLE. I agree that shorting on the spike is a reasonable way to lock in a fixed profit, but I doubt that a large proportion of the warrant holders did this. If they all did this, few warrants would have traded. No doubt, there was a lot of shorting (and covering) going on over the last week by other investors as well. The point I was trying to make, however, was not that the warrants would/or would not be used to cover shorts, but that more of the trading (shorting or otherwise) done by warrant holders would occur before Friday or after the shares are available in a week or so. We saw 7 million shares trade yesterday. If action in the warrants was available, would the effect be additive, or would it share in the volume? If it would have split the trading volume between shares and warrants, would the price rise been as great? This is a question of liquidity, not demand. It is also a question that is barely relevant. It may be of little practical significance to the average shareholder, but it attracted my curiosity. Regards, ae