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.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Teflon who wrote (9094)	5/5/1999 6:20:00 PM
From: Rico Staris	Respond to of 29970

NO BLOCK TRADES...WHY?...BECAUSE OF THIS.. . . . . . Nasdaq has posted this for more than 2 months now on ATHM stock. "Short Sales in this security are subject to NASD regulations, UPC 11830. Shares may be difficult to borrow." It is very difficult to borrow, coz there are no more shares out there. Borrowing whether to sell it or buying it. This is why there wont be block trades...coz there are no shares out there to sell in HUGE blocks. GO FIGURE! JMHO! not for you teflon.

To: Teflon who wrote (9094)	5/5/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Teflon, thanks for that note. Both notes, actually. In the first one you reinforced what I was saying in a way, by stating: "I visited the ATHM Board last month to discuss it with the Group here but few people seem interested..." And you pointed out my Silicon Investor Myopia by declaring: "A group of us has been discussing this point at length over on the MSFT Board for some time now. As a matter of fact..." I was actually referring to the absence of specific mention in the press of the broader agenda that MSFT has. I wasn't aware of the depth of the discussions on the MSFT thread here in SI, either. I'll do some lurking there and stop in to chat if there is an opening. Certainly, I would be happy to join you there. Thanks. ------------- I did read the post you referenced, by the way, but the "concessions" you spoke of seemed vague to me at the time, even though I had in the back of my mind the larger DTV matter. Yours was a highly generalized statement, I thought. It didn't stand out as the larger issue I was referring to, but now I know better. ------------- In your second message to me a few minutes ago, you implied that T will in all likelihood be immune from interference, on the basis of the size of their pocket book. I suppose that this could be viewed as an extrapolation of balls, by some measures, although some may consider it as simply high-stakes risk taking aided by a growing sense of omnipotence, and not just a little bit of denial. What if they don't stop demonstrating their courage through further spending? Does that mean that there is no limit to their ultimate catch, as long as they demonstrate the courage and resources to continue dropping down billions at a time? If so, I know a few folks who would like to be shown the way to that casino table. There's a limit to the tolerance levels of elected officials and agency heads, I'm sure. Even if what T is doing is the right thing to do, inertia is not on their side. T is now testing the collective envelope of all of those who are supposed to oppose them in Washington and elsewhere at the state PUC levels, without even having a working product yet, from what I can see. Does T demonstrate confidence in their own future? Absolutely. Balls? Indeed. And I'll leave it at that, for the moment. In any event, it's good to have your ongoing input here. Regards, Frank Coluccio