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 : Daytrading Canadian stocks in Realtime -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: keith massey who wrote (10463)	5/1/1999 11:52:00 AM
From: Kevin Hamlin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 62348

<<< You must just love conspiracy theories <ggg> However the piece of the puzzle that we often leave out is that a single person or group could be buying/selling from several different houses.>>> Hehe, liking "conspiracy theories". Well, not really Keith. I am intrigued though by corporate "puzzles". I think what we have with GLE, Delphi, and BMW is a bunch of puzzle pieces that are looking like they could be the groundwork for the total picture. All we need now is the person/people to announce that these pieces do in fact fit each other! Like I said, it seems far too coincidental for these events to all be taking place at the same time without this being a concerted effort. As for other plausible explanations for the buying, I'm searching for them....just can't find any that seem to make as much sense!! I've thought about what you said regarding "they could be buying through more than one house". Yes, they could...but I assume that whoever "they" are, they would have to declare 10% ownership no matter if they were buying through one house or a number of houses. Since Sprott alone is near the 10% mark, it looks like it "they" are currently buying just through this one house. Just to satisfy my curiosity, there has been some other chunky buying as well this month. Midland is up net 682,227 shares, and DS is up net 389,000 shares. Adding either of these houses purchases into the Sprott buying would easily have put the "purchasers" over the 10% limit. These leaves me to consider that there are funds in buying as well, possibly buying through Midland and/or DS. As for myself, I just can't decide whether I'm "looking for the fit" or "it's staring me right in the face!" I'm tending to think the later. With Sprott hovering just below the 10% ownership line of GLE as of yesterday, I think the (positive) answer will be revealed very soon, i.m.h.o, the coming week. Regards, Kevin

To: keith massey who wrote (10463)	5/1/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: Marc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 62348

The Toronto Stock Exchange's (TSE) plan to introduce an electronic call market could end up pitting traders and institutional investors against each other, rather than boosting market liquidity as planned. Institutional investors support the TSE's plan, arguing that electronic call markets make trading of stock fairer, more transparent, and less expensive (However, some traders are less enthusiastic about the TSE's plan for a call market, and have threatened to treat it as a competitor and-or a market of last resort). The TSE is negotiating with OptiMark Technologies Inc. to set up a call market on the exchange sometime after 2000. The exchange is hoping the new trading system will recapture the trading of big blocks of shares that institutional investors and their dealers now trade privately, in what is called the "upstairs market". Institutions increasingly choose the upstairs market over the TSE's publicly visible auction to prevent their trading strategy from leaking out ahead of a transaction and undermining the price they would otherwise get. Meanwhile in Montreal : Versus Technologies Inc., under the auspices of the Montreal Exchange, has been operating an electronic call market for institutional investors and dealers since January 1998. However, it hasn't attracted much interest from either institutions or dealers, though the two sides give different reasons for its lack of success. The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board, traces Versus' lack of success on its technological limitations. The call market couldn't execute a trade at the midway point of the bid and offer price, which discouraged investors and dealers from using the system. Quite a few shares went into the system at first, then apparent frustration from a lack of hits resulted in a lack of liquidity. Versus acknowleges its call market has fallen short of expectations. They have been doing between two and four matches a week, which is about 1/25 of what they thought we would be doing. Undaunted, Versus is working on a more technologically advanced alternative trading system, which it plans to introduce soon. To generate liquidity, Versus might offer economic incentives to users of its network. Versus indicated it might also offer ownership in the new network to its constituents in exchange for a certain number of orders from the constituents. Versus' experience highlights why there could be more of an incentive for a dealer to continue to trade blocks of shares in the upstairs market instead of using an electronic call market. Dealers will not take a 100,000-share order and put it in the call market. Instead they will continue to use the upstairs market which ensures that the firm gets the full commission for a trade by acting for both the buyer and the seller. forwardlook.com You can also get information on the OSC web site; osc.gov.on.ca Regards, MArc