Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. Message Board

  • Leonardo_Bazzani Leonardo_Bazzani Aug 1, 1999 6:00 PM Flag

    ByVolume...(OT)

    Do you have insight or opinion?
    If a stock
    closes at a new high, how do you know?

    How do you
    determine when the stock will reverse its course on a
    temporary basis?
    Is such a move enough for a speculator
    to get out and in again?

    I will appreciate if
    you care to share your expertise.

    Leo

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Lucy told Linda


      http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin420.htm

      Linda Tripp's life and
      career:

      http://acav.com/tripp/

      Linda Trip Fan
      Club.

      http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/980223/23gold.htm

      Lucianne Goldberg's taste for


      Sincerely,

      ByVolume

    • Wall Street had better look at the world outside
      its windows. This is the Clinton age, in which the
      message from the highest office in the land is that you
      can indeed get away with just about anything. Not
      quite. Whatever the standards of the White House, Wall
      Street needs higher sights.

      If businessmen don't
      do their own dirty laundry, the politicians will --
      and that could do a lot of damage to the modern
      economy. More broadly, capitalism is not just a question
      of following a precise legal code, and paying
      whatever fines. Capitalism only works well when folks play
      by the rules. And it only works if the rules mean
      something to both the established veterans and the hungry
      novices.

      Chelens> I told of the actions that were legal for a
      market maker in setting the bid and ask and trading for
      their own account. Can you please post that site
      again?(GLM message)

      ByVolume: In Wall Street (Rich
      Powerful & Famous) it is every thing is legal, except when
      you are caught.

      Sincerely,

      ByVolume

    • Wall Street Journal; New York; Aug 11, 1999;


      With Wall Street riding high on its most amazing
      decade since the roaring '20s, we've about reached that
      dizzy moment where some folks feel safe enough to start
      making real mistakes. That's how it's been looking
      lately on a couple of fronts.

      Scandal is sloshing
      around at Bear Stearns. Meanwhile, worries have been
      growing that there may be a dark and seedy side to the
      new stock industry known as day trading. In both
      cases, the real problem is not that people are making
      bad decisions about stocks. It's that stock-dealers
      are making some poor calls about ethics. Unless the
      market-makers clean up their acts, the result will be Wall
      Street taking the heat for whatever goes wrong, and
      politicians will descend in force to impose regulations that
      could hamstring the markets and shut down the good
      times for everybody. This was how we got
      Glass-Steagall, which stayed forever.

      The problem at Bear
      Stearns is of the good-old-boy variety -- a
      well-respected firm allegedly playing fast and loose with some
      of its customers. Last week, after a lengthy
      investigation, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought
      charges that Bear Stearns had contributed to a case of
      securities fraud by covering up for a troubled, smaller
      brokerage that was one its clients.

      The SEC also
      brought securities fraud charges against the head of Bear
      Stearns' clearing operations, Richard Harriton. Bear
      Stearns agreed to pay $38.5 million to settle its case,
      and Mr. Harriton resigned. What's troubling is that
      Bear Stearns has effectively closed ranks around
      whatever went wrong here. There is no explanation of why
      Mr. Harriton was kept on as long as he was, or
      whether Bear Stearns believes it's a bad idea to fiddle
      with the truth.

      The better course would be to
      come clean. Wall Street is a place where
      businesspeople go to great lengths to wear fine clothes and work
      in fancy offices that are meant to suggest solid
      performance. None of those trappings is as important as a
      basic sense of integrity -- and when respected firms
      start salami-slicing that value, even if only in
      appearance, they do poorly by others in the
      business.

      Day trading raises another kind of problem. The
      trouble with day trading, as it's now done, is not that
      it is intrinsically wrong; in principle, it provides
      useful liquidity that makes markets more efficient, and
      the country richer. But it is also a realm in which a
      lot of novices seem to be getting set up for a
      fall.

      This is a relatively new take on the stock business,
      born of advances in computer technology that make it
      easy for anyone to take a flier on intra-day trading.
      As with most financial industries when the first
      participants appear, the pitfalls are not yet well-known, or
      well-publicized. The result so far has been a bucketshop aspect to
      the business.

      Most of the more than 200
      brokerages offering day trading are relatively new,
      clustered in places like New Jersey and Texas. And a study
      just released by the North American Securities
      Administrators Association suggests that some of the brokerages
      are basically luring their clients onto the
      rocks.

      Notably, there are firms offering day trading services by
      way of ads that suggest the business is a lot less
      risky than it is. Much of this business goes on now by
      way of highly leveraged accounts, with some of these
      firms juggling funds in such a way as to massively
      increase the exposure of relatively amateur traders -- who
      may not be fully informed of the true risks. Should
      there come a big drop in the market, the result could
      be wreckage, scandals, calls for bailout and of
      course politicians regulating an industry that would
      work fine were customers better informed and business
      practices less suspect.

    • THINK OK THINK WHAT THIS WOMAN DID. Ms. Tripp
      worked at one time for the white house; Ms. Tripp also
      worked for the pentagon so did the other party in
      question; POINT IN QUESTION. no white house employee nor
      any pentagon employee can record, tape, wire tap
      another without some type of chain of comand clerance;
      PLEASE understand that these women had top clerances
      maybe secret or higher; one can not do such a thing and
      continue to work for the government; it is crazy to even
      think of linda tripp as anything except a damn nut. If
      linda tripp really wanted to help the country, to save
      the country then she would have gone to her chain of
      command at the pentagon with those tapes; then maybe you
      that hate the president would be kissing newt ass
      now.Would any of you want linda tripp around your personal
      or important papers now; would and senator or
      general hell linda may take something copy something;
      tripp is one hell of a security risk.

    • ByVolume by: DryVolume (31/M/Hoboken) 2476 of
      2477
      I bought 1000 at 8.50 and another at 1000 at
      8.75. I sold all of it. I can not afford to lose.
      Thanks again for guidance. �Posted: 08/09/1999 02:08 pm
      EDT as a reply to: Msg 2475 by ByVolume


      ByVolume: DryVolume, you are working very hard for your
      money. There is no need to follow your friends and
      colleagues. Most of these guys had easy life. And inheritance
      played good part of it. You are sending funds to your
      folks. So this is not a place to make money. Easy money
      is already made.

      ByVolume: Please stay away
      from this market. We are in a very speculative phase.
      Early success in gambling (playing during the late
      stage of the market) is generally a prelude to
      disaster.

      Good
      Luck.

      Sincerely,

      ByVolume

    • WEEKEND AUGUST 1,
      1999

      institutionaladvisors.com

      Click on �Weekly update�
      Click on �Pivotal Events�


      WEEKEND AUGUST 1, 1999

      Most senior stock exchanges
      seem to have started an intermediate decline. Some
      conviction is provided by elements that were part of the
      late buying mania changing as well. The U.S. dollar
      has reversed, as have sensational lumber prices. Base
      metals have turned sideways following a speculative rush
      (although nickel soars, metal ADs are deteriorating). Crude
      oil's pattern is v. similar to five previous important
      blowoffs.

      Over crude's brief history, significant highs relative
      to gold occurred in 1929 as part of the much longer
      pattern of important lows for gold's deflated price with
      the top of financial bubbles. At 12 bbls/oz. now, the
      ratio is the lowest since the Mid/1980s. It did get to
      10 with the Gulf War, but since then important lows
      were around 14.

      Indicating some anticipation
      of recent disappointments was dramatic widening of
      spreads during the previous week when those for 10-year
      swaps exceeded last year's crisis levels. On Friday,
      these recovered to Monday's highs. Although seemingly
      constrained, spreads for emerging debt rising through 1200 bp
      would provide interesting confirmation of the model's
      expectation that the markets would accelerate towards
      financial distress after mid/year.

      Confirming
      change, the treasury curve continues to steepen as lease
      rates for gold rise to levels indicating some tensions
      between diverse buyers and curiously adamant
      sellers.

      Although changes have been modest, the consequence of
      resolute trends merits attention. The features of previous
      post-bubble conditions have been wider spreads, steeper
      curve, lower commodities, as well as higher real gold
      prices and much lower silver
      prices.

      Sincerely,

      ByVolume

    • New York Times; New York; Aug 10, 1999; Ian
      Ayres;
      Ian Ayres is a law professor at Yale
      University.

      Some lawyers have argued that state laws against the
      secret recording of conversations -- like the Maryland
      statute under which Linda Tripp was indicted for taping
      Monica Lewinsky -- are necessary to protect privacy. But
      exactly what aspect of privacy is being
      protected?

      Mrs. Tripp could have gone on ''Hard Copy'' and told
      the world what Monica Lewinsky said in their phone
      conversations, and it would not have been a crime. In fact, she
      could have hired a court stenographer to listen in on
      her phone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky and had
      them transcribed verbatim. That, too, would not have
      been a crime.

      As wiretapping laws are now
      written, the crime is creating an unimpeachable record of
      a conversation. The laws certainly don't protect
      anyone's privacy, since the substance of the late-night
      Lewinsky-Tripp chat sessions could have been divulged.

      If
      you think about it, the only thing the law protected
      was Ms. Lewinsky's option of misrepresenting what she
      said.

      If the recording didn't exist, Ms. Lewinsky could
      have undermined the credibility of Mrs. Tripp's
      disclosure by (falsely) claiming that Mrs. Tripp was lying.
      So, at most, the law indirectly protected the privacy
      of the conversations by giving Ms. Lewinsky
      ''plausible deniability.''

      But it is bizarre to have a
      law that protects a person's privacy only if he lies
      about what he said. Maybe that's why secretly taping
      calls is legal in 38 states (though not in Maryland,
      where Mrs. Tripp lives).

      It is reasonable to
      prohibit Mrs. Tripp or anyone else from selling secret
      recordings. The broadcast of Ms. Lewinsky's voice would be an
      additional invasion of privacy that would go beyond a
      description of what she said.

      But if Ms. Lewinsky had
      denied telling Mrs. Tripp about her relationship (as she
      arguably did), Mrs. Tripp, in her own defense, should have
      been allowed to use the tapes she made of her
      conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to prove what was actually
      said. A denial should have been considered as giving
      consent to at least a limited disclosure of the tape's
      contents.

      If laws were amended to allow an exception in cases
      of self-defense, some recordings of private
      interactions could be disclosed in a limited fashion. But this
      would be only a marginal additional burden on the
      speaker's privacy, both because Mrs. Tripp already had the
      right to disclose what Ms. Lewinsky said and because
      the limited broadcast would occur only if Ms.
      Lewinsky had contested the accuracy of the
      report.

      There is precedent for such disclosure: the venerable
      exclusionary rule allows prosecutors to use illegally obtained
      evidence to rebut a defendant's false denials. If a
      criminal defendant testifies that he has never seen the
      murder weapon, the prosecution can admit as evidence a
      gun bearing his fingerprints to show that the
      defendant's testimony is false. This is allowed even if the
      gun was obtained by an illegal search and would
      otherwise be inadmissible as evidence.

      What the
      indictment of Mrs. Tripp reflects is our conflicted moral
      response to whistleblowers.

      Mrs. Tripp was
      castigated for taping conversations about an affair. But a
      few years ago, a man who surreptitiously recorded
      racially insensitive remarks by executives of Texaco was
      hailed as a hero.

      The 12 states that have laws
      against secret taping need to rewrite them. Criminality
      should not turn on the act of recording but on whether
      the recording's subsequent use is
      appropriate.

      As currently written, these laws can have a chilling
      effect on credible whistleblowing and protect the
      privacy only of those who are willing to lie about what
      they really said. Disclosing a private conversation
      may be a morally unworthy act, but it should not be a
      criminal one. And that is true whether or not someone
      records the
      conversation.

      Sincerely,

      ByV

    • I bought 1000 at 8.50 and another at 1000 at 8.75. I sold all of it. I can not afford to lose. Thanks again for guidance.

    • ISLE may go down to 8.50

      Sincerely,

      ByVolume

    • Beginning Of A Bear Market

      WHEN THE
      DISTRIBUTION period is over at the close of any bull market
      and the major movement has turned downward into the
      marking down stage or a major bear movement, the
      tendencies which we have noted in our description of the end
      of a bull market grow gradually but steadily less
      potent and less noticeable, finally giving way to just
      the opposite tendencies, which again go too far the
      other way at the end of a long bear market.

      In
      the early stages of the bear market, for instance,
      interest rates are generally still very high, quite often
      higher than before the bear movement started; business
      is still satisfactory, or even apparently booming,
      in individual lines; tips and rumors of a favorable
      nature are still going around, with frequent sharp
      recoveries, all perhaps designed to keep the public from
      becoming discouraged too soon and selling out at
      comparatively high prices.

      As the major bear movement
      continues interest rates decline, business is poor,
      commodity prices are often exceptionally low, public
      confidence is gradually being undermined, earning statements
      are declining, public interest in the market has
      dropped away rapidly (at least so far as constructive
      purchases are concerned), brokers' loans are being reduced,
      favorable tips and rumors gradually diminish and give way
      to growing unfavorable ones. Gradually the basic
      fundamentals are being restored to a more favorable basis, but
      the public, as usual, sees only the terrific
      declines, the staggering losses, the growing blackness of
      the future outlook, just as it saw only the bright
      side of things while the fundamentals were
      weakening.

      The Wisdom of Richard W. Schabacker (A Treasury of
      Wall Street Wisdom)

      Sincerely,

      ByVolume

    • View More Messages
 
ISLE
14.45+0.03(+0.21%)10:17 AMEDT