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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : DCI Telecommunications - DCTC Today -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Turner who wrote (15812)	4/24/1999 9:04:00 AM
From: De Peepster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19331

Dear Steve, " Further, with all the short plays available on stocks like these Internet IPO's..." One cannot short an IPO for a certain period of time, sorry don't have a link or anything. Please correct me if wrong,,, Barbara

To: Steve Turner who wrote (15812)	4/24/1999 9:39:00 AM
From: Colin Cody	Respond to of 19331

you said a short needs to be covered eventually, so that's a "cost". I don't necessarily disagree, but in my reply about "cost" I was talking the current out of pocket cost, which is all that counts in the real investment world. Like if you go to the grocery story to buy bread, you take CASH out of your pocket and you pay... that's the cost. A future cost is just that... an obligation that is to be taken care of in the future. WHY pick on DCI you ask? I thought I spelled that out. Again: The "shorts" IMO, are certain parties well familiar with THIS COMPANY as they have/had/will-have/hope-to-have dibs on certain Reg-S/purchase-options/other-sources of DCI common shares. i.e. they feel thay have NO RISK WHATSOEVER. That's the "always" the thinking of a foreigner/short. --------------------------------------------------------- "everyone knows" that the way foreign Reg S works is that a USA Company sells restricted stock at a discount to the market to a foreigner who is "required to hold said securities for XXX days before selling" BUT who in turn immediately sells the stock SHORT anyway "against the box" and then after the requisit XXX days delivers said shares to satisfy the short position. IMO, this is what may have, in effect, been what happened here with DCI. DCI has/had/may-have an obligation to issue or lift restrictions on certain shares of stock that have/had/may-be "earmarked" as the "short against the box" shares. Maybe that makes it clearer, Colin