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 : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tool dude who wrote (31562)	4/21/1999 1:09:00 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 122087

There is no worthwhile product for ICCAC to sell. I think E-commerce software has kinda been covered by a few dozen other companies already - IBM, SE, OMKT, etc. Expect the MM's to be selling early and often on behalf of the new "financial backers" at ICCAC. Short to zero.

To: tool dude who wrote (31562)	4/21/1999 9:00:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

I'm sure we could come to an agreement on why prices rise and fall. If the boiler room sales force makes a concentrated effort on the suckers list, it can generate substantial buying which will affect the price. However, it is still the buying which causes the price change. If some market maker takes its capital and shorts the heck out of a stock, it will affect the stock's price. However, it is still the selling which causes the price change. With enough capital I could do the same, but I'd be taking market risk. What I disbelieve is the notion that mm's control the price just by setting it or whatever. To keep the price down, they'd have to sell, to keep it up, they'd have to buy. Either way, the market risk of taking the position would have to be assumed. I believe prices are set by supply and demand. I'm not sure why I'm dilly dallying around on shorting ICCAC. I'm kind of shy about the lack of liquidity. Barb