SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech
Knight/Trimark Group, Inc.
An SI Board Since July 1998
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
10027 74 0 KCG
Emcee:  jacksoo Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
9052Thank you for your kind words, X. First the obvious - so far it is all speculatiSir Francis Drake-9/8/2000
9051Per Briefing.com: 15:50 ET Market Makers : Sources at <b>Spear Leads<Xpiderman-9/8/2000
9050NY Times article suggests that SCH (and by implication NITE - typically, "NSir Francis Drake-9/8/2000
9049That's the way, aha aha, I like it, that is the way aha aha, I like it!!!! fiberman-9/8/2000
9048"Given the continued strength in Knight's fundamentals, the company'Alohal-9/8/2000
9047As I've been saying, iX is in trouble. Swedes (OM Gruppen) outmaneuvered theSir Francis Drake-9/8/2000
9046And LAB downgraded by SSB based on valuation - no surprise at all. I was expectiSir Francis Drake-9/8/2000
9045NDB's MM operations were impacted negatively in <b>July</b> due Sir Francis Drake-9/8/2000
9044For the record: Appleby's reasoning for lowering the estimates - and an admSir Francis Drake-9/8/2000
9043<OT> E*Trade Japan: biz.yahoo.com "Friday September 8, 1:44 am EastSir Francis Drake-9/8/2000
9042Thanks Morgan. I'm taking the "high road" - hoping for 50 cents tDavid Montgomery-9/7/2000
9041No sweat, David - 3Q is still very much up in the air. What makes all this devilSir Francis Drake-9/7/2000
9040Yes, I saw that Gary - pretty absurd, LOL! LAB was an interesting acquisition foSir Francis Drake-9/7/2000
9039Morgan, from Briefing.com today. I'm surprised no one caught this earlier. gbh-9/7/2000
9038Sorry about that then Morgan. I don't pay much attention to people arguing David Montgomery-9/7/2000
9037Hmmm, another 275,000+ shares between 4:02-03 (didn't look like a late reporAlohal-9/7/2000
9036Nite up 21% over last 18 trading days, not a bad return for a POS <gggg>. Alohal-9/7/2000
9035Everyone who owns NITE must do there own due diligence, Morgan is secretly a NITGS_Wall Street-9/7/2000
9034<i>Nite needs to be taken out</i> Agreed. <i>it is time to takGeorge the Greek-9/7/2000
9033Nite needs to be taken out. Whether Morgan is right re: 10 multiple or not, it imichael97123-9/7/2000
9032vestor, you are correct, SA has been wrong in the past about NITE. But at no timSir Francis Drake-9/6/2000
9031David, the "I told you so" was referring to the fact that months ago, Sir Francis Drake-9/6/2000
9030These recent price gyrations of NITE, are pretty meaningless - whether it goes uSir Francis Drake-9/6/2000
9029My estimates for 2001 are currently at 2.89. Since NITE is so dependant on tradiGS_Wall Street-9/6/2000
9028Knight's July, 00 volumes (daily average) were up over the June, 00 volumes.David Montgomery-9/6/2000
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News