|
|
Post by ocdmike on Oct 3, 2005 16:23:56 GMT -6
i called ameritrade concerning why some of my sell orders did not execute at .10. i was told that their charts showed no change from .0001-.0001. i responded that i had seen the .10 on yahoo finance so he checked and said his yahoo finance chart showed the same .....no change. what i saw looked like a vwap at .10 for 2billion something shares at the days close. any input appreciated. i know some of you saw it also!
|
|
|
|
Post by johnsjungle on Oct 3, 2005 16:26:52 GMT -6
I hate to tell yah but the trade was a fat fingers mistake. It happens all the time. They normally get reversed...
I saw the trade go by the next trade was at .0001 just like all the rest...
But maybe soon...
Good Luck..
|
|
|
|
Post by ocdmike on Oct 3, 2005 16:28:30 GMT -6
long and strong,johnsjungle!
|
|
|
|
Post by tchrguy on Oct 3, 2005 16:30:59 GMT -6
Still, it was certainly nice to see my total account value in the old Ameritrade account.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocdmike on Oct 3, 2005 16:32:48 GMT -6
aaaaatttttsssss right tchrguy!
|
|
|
|
Post by john3339 on Oct 3, 2005 18:42:12 GMT -6
I hate to tell yah but the trade was a fat fingers mistake. It happens all the time. They normally get reversed... I saw the trade go by the next trade was at .0001 just like all the rest... But maybe soon... Good Luck.. Fat fingers my butt! the original trade was for 1,000,000 shares at $.10. The reversal was a cancellation of the $10,000 trade, but it was a reversal for 100,000,000 shares! The Mm's appear to have covered 99,000,000 naked shorts for ZERO cost! they "buy" 1,000,000 shares for $10,000...then they cancell the 100,000,000 share "buy". they pay nothing, yet an additional 99 million shares are now off the books. am I seeing things wrong, or does this seem like a scheme to you too? worst part is, it's easy for tem, if they get caught in this scheme, to claim "fat fingers" since it happens all the time. Thing is, normally, fat fingers only involve one digit mising...not two or three zeros. And the mistake is usually in the "buy" transaction, not in the correction. If this is truely their scheme, then they could cover the naked sorts at no cost to them, over time. any thoughts? john |
|
|
|
Post by spoal on Oct 3, 2005 18:46:25 GMT -6
I hate to tell yah but the trade was a fat fingers mistake. It happens all the time. They normally get reversed... I saw the trade go by the next trade was at .0001 just like all the rest... But maybe soon... Good Luck.. Fat fingers my butt! the original trade was for 1,000,000 shares at $.10. The reversal was a cancellation of the $10,000 trade, but it was a reversal for 100,000,000 shares! The Mm's appear to have covered 99,000,000 naked shorts for ZERO cost! they "buy" 1,000,000 shares for $10,000...then they cancell the 100,000,000 share "buy". they pay nothing, yet an additional 99 million shares are now off the books. am I seeing things wrong, or does this seem like a scheme to you too? worst part is, it's easy for tem, if they get caught in this scheme, to claim "fat fingers" since it happens all the time. Thing is, normally, fat fingers only involve one digit mising...not two or three zeros. And the mistake is usually in the "buy" transaction, not in the correction. If this is truely their scheme, then they could cover the naked sorts at no cost to them, over time. any thoughts? john  , my thought is that if that is what is going on, it stinks! How will there ever be a forced cover with that nonsense happening? Does anyone monitor these jokers? |
|
|
|
Post by tbone on Oct 3, 2005 18:52:10 GMT -6
I hate to tell yah but the trade was a fat fingers mistake. It happens all the time. They normally get reversed... I saw the trade go by the next trade was at .0001 just like all the rest... But maybe soon... Good Luck.. Fat fingers my butt! the original trade was for 1,000,000 shares at $.10. The reversal was a cancellation of the $10,000 trade, but it was a reversal for 100,000,000 shares! The Mm's appear to have covered 99,000,000 naked shorts for ZERO cost! they "buy" 1,000,000 shares for $10,000...then they cancell the 100,000,000 share "buy". they pay nothing, yet an additional 99 million shares are now off the books. am I seeing things wrong, or does this seem like a scheme to you too? worst part is, it's easy for tem, if they get caught in this scheme, to claim "fat fingers" since it happens all the time. Thing is, normally, fat fingers only involve one digit mising...not two or three zeros. And the mistake is usually in the "buy" transaction, not in the correction. If this is truely their scheme, then they could cover the naked sorts at no cost to them, over time. any thoughts? john I agree and fat fingers are usually the number next to what you want not at the other end of the keyboard. imo |
|
|
|
Post by john3339 on Oct 3, 2005 18:53:34 GMT -6
I think it's ilegal to cancell sells that are larger than buys isn't it? If not, why have a cover at all? Just reverse 100 times the number of a sell you want erased, and cover the naked shorts with the difference. AT NO COST!
|
|
|
|
Post by scorpion on Oct 3, 2005 18:57:15 GMT -6
Interesting If they cover the short this way or at least most of it, then our PPS should reflect the value of CMKX. One problem no one knows. It's possible that they might be trying to reduce their liability but who knows I hate to tell yah but the trade was a fat fingers mistake. It happens all the time. They normally get reversed... I saw the trade go by the next trade was at .0001 just like all the rest... But maybe soon... Good Luck.. Fat fingers my butt! the original trade was for 1,000,000 shares at $.10. The reversal was a cancellation of the $10,000 trade, but it was a reversal for 100,000,000 shares! The Mm's appear to have covered 99,000,000 naked shorts for ZERO cost! they "buy" 1,000,000 shares for $10,000...then they cancell the 100,000,000 share "buy". they pay nothing, yet an additional 99 million shares are now off the books. am I seeing things wrong, or does this seem like a scheme to you too? worst part is, it's easy for tem, if they get caught in this scheme, to claim "fat fingers" since it happens all the time. Thing is, normally, fat fingers only involve one digit mising...not two or three zeros. And the mistake is usually in the "buy" transaction, not in the correction. If this is truely their scheme, then they could cover the naked sorts at no cost to them, over time. any thoughts? john |
|
|
|
Post by john3339 on Oct 3, 2005 19:00:15 GMT -6
Agreed. Eventually, the pps for CMKX would stick. But this scheme would all but eliminate any short squeeze, controlled or not. I think I'd feel cheated if they were able to get off so easily. I'd like to sell a few million of my shares for a dime each WITHOUT getting reversed first! Interesting If they cover the short this way or at least most of it, then our PPS should reflect the value of CMKX. One problem no one knows. It's possible that they might be trying to reduce their liability but who knows Fat fingers my butt! the original trade was for 1,000,000 shares at $.10. The reversal was a cancellation of the $10,000 trade, but it was a reversal for 100,000,000 shares! The Mm's appear to have covered 99,000,000 naked shorts for ZERO cost! they "buy" 1,000,000 shares for $10,000...then they cancell the 100,000,000 share "buy". they pay nothing, yet an additional 99 million shares are now off the books. am I seeing things wrong, or does this seem like a scheme to you too? worst part is, it's easy for tem, if they get caught in this scheme, to claim "fat fingers" since it happens all the time. Thing is, normally, fat fingers only involve one digit mising...not two or three zeros. And the mistake is usually in the "buy" transaction, not in the correction. If this is truely their scheme, then they could cover the naked sorts at no cost to them, over time. any thoughts? john |
|
|
|
Post by ocdmike on Oct 3, 2005 20:29:18 GMT -6
whatll they think of next?
|
|
|
|
Post by doughboy on Oct 3, 2005 20:42:15 GMT -6
I hate to tell yah but the trade was a fat fingers mistake. It happens all the time. They normally get reversed... I saw the trade go by the next trade was at .0001 just like all the rest... But maybe soon... Good Luck.. Fat fingers my butt! the original trade was for 1,000,000 shares at $.10. The reversal was a cancellation of the $10,000 trade, but it was a reversal for 100,000,000 shares! The Mm's appear to have covered 99,000,000 naked shorts for ZERO cost! they "buy" 1,000,000 shares for $10,000...then they cancell the 100,000,000 share "buy". they pay nothing, yet an additional 99 million shares are now off the books. am I seeing things wrong, or does this seem like a scheme to you too? worst part is, it's easy for tem, if they get caught in this scheme, to claim "fat fingers" since it happens all the time. Thing is, normally, fat fingers only involve one digit mising...not two or three zeros. And the mistake is usually in the "buy" transaction, not in the correction. If this is truely their scheme, then they could cover the naked sorts at no cost to them, over time. any thoughts? john Time to call in IBM and his boys, before it gets out of hand. |
|
, my thought is that if that is what is going on, it stinks! How will there ever be a forced cover with that nonsense happening? Does anyone monitor these jokers?