ADMINS: VRGNGAL

I hate to be a stickler and I hate manipulation as much as anyone. But the payout statement of the prop does not allow for the closing of the stock on the announcement that flights will not occur by the date the prop closes. The only condition that is indicated is "This proposition will pay out at POP$100 per share if Virgin Galactic's carrier ship, White Knight Two, successfully completes a flight test by August 31, 2008." which is quite clear the stock can only close after 8/31/2008.
Which if people are half way smart means this should be a pretty clear short, if you want to wait until Sept. to get your payout.

Ejcassel: the artcles that you posted are referring to commercial flights not occuring until 2010(and on an unknown craft) not the test flights on the White Knight Two. And one article discusses his "mothership" taking a spaceplane into orbit in July which could be the test flight of White Knight Two (it isn't identified in the article) which would meet the payout criteria.

davidhartley: you have the two props confused. There is VRGNGAL and VRGNTST.

http://ppx.popsci.com/security/view.php?symbol=VRGNTST
http://ppx.popsci.com/security/view.php?symbol=VRGNGAL

However, like the VRGNTST prop, I do agree that the wording of the payout doesn't indicate a payout based on a schedule. Only that we would have to wait until Jan 1, 2010.

my bad, forgot there were two virgin stocks. But my view on the payout statement for VRGNGAL is the same there is nothing to end it early, and even Branson's thoughts that it will happen later are not written in stone. I would love to be one of the Tourists flying in 2010.

This proposition will pay off at POP$100 per share if Virgin Galactic starts flying paying passengers into suborbital space by January 1, 2010.

That is the criteria. If the date for starting that is now nearly a year later, the only thing leaving the prop open for 2 years does is encourage market manipulation.

There is precedent. They have closed other props on the announcement that the deadline will not be met. The reason as I understood it then was to avoid market manipulation. I fail to understand why any players would be in favor of a situation in which a stock either just takes up space or is used for manipulation.

ejcassel

Why is it up $2.50 today as of 3:30 centeral time? It's a SHORT, people, A SHORT!!!

No, it's only up $.50. I had the two props mixed up.

i had asked them about another space related prop before and they couldn't close it because there wasn't a mention of the schedule in the payout line. With some of the recent space ones, they have put something in there about the schedule. That might be what you're thinking of.

Its not manipulation until the criteria is met (and people are allowed to continue to trade on the stock) until the criteria for the stock is met people are only playing what may be a sure thing, and the stock should remain open. Actually stocks like this that appear to be sure things (could still change) but they also play into player strategy, do you sit for a long period of time on a stock that you are 99% certain is going to pay either long or short, and lose other opportunities to make money by jumping to other stocks, or do you bail and take other investment opportunities that you believe will be more profitable.

For example VRGNGAL is at $63 dollars and looks like a sure short for 2010, so do you sit until 2010 to make $63 profit (plus you investment), or do you drop VRGNGAL (especially if you were holding long) and trade other things for the next year and a half (hopefully making money and more than the $63 dollars) and maybe short VRGNGAL again when it is down around $10, making $10 profit from it plus all they money that the original $63 allowed you to reinvest.

If they want to be able to close them on conditions like this they need to define the option in the payout statement. This market which has always been on shaky ground at best becomes more shaky if the integrity of the prop and the payout statement is allowed to be arbitrarily changed.

Might I respectfully suggest you go short on BULBS.

No one would, it's clearly a long. So clearly that it's current price is $100.00.

VRGNGAL is clearly a short, those who create the launch schedule have said they won't be launching until at best 11 months after the prop deadline. Therefore it's value should be right around $0.00.

To suggest that ppx players HONESTLY believe that a program designed to take people into space can suddenly just cut the testing period in half, given the known laws of physics, is ludicrous. The only reason for this prop to ever go up again is a distortion in the space-time continuum allowing for a shorter testing period, or stock manipulation.

But again, if you believe differently, please gather your friends and buy BULBS short. Technically it's a theoretical possibility that it could end that way.

First I am not one to sit on a stock thats not going to make me any money. Those people who buy at $100 a share deserve to lose the opportunity to make any money. But should the stock be closed because it is setting at $100. No we have no idea what the numbers for 2009 will look like.

As for Virgin cutting their test period short, yeah chances are pretty slim, but if one of the others who are looking to start similar flights to Virgin indicate that they will launch next year, I bet Virgin would rethink their time table.

Stocks change all the time mostly due to wave riders jumping on and off of stocks without any reason other than they see movement. So the only way to stop what you would call manipulation on these stocks that look like a sure thing is stop wave riding (and I don't know how you would do that). Maybe on these sure stocks that have people flipping and driving the price in a direction that does not make sense,an analysis should be done to see if their is collusion and those players caught "manipulating" would be banned.

And although I don't think it is a good strategy, betting against what looks like a sure shot could make sense to someone. For example lets look at Bulbs if I Short at $100K the day before the stock is to close, and the next day it closes I only stand to lose the commission charges, but what if the prop actually failed I risked the cost of commission to earn 100K profit (minus commissions). Lets say we are looking at a stock that is seen as a sure thing and is trading at $95, would you be willing to risk $5 for a chance to gain $95 in profit. Sure the chances are slim but if their was a slim chance that it might payout it might be worth it.

My biggest objection to closing these sure shots is that the language of the prop needs to followed to the letter for this market to have any integrity at all. The best solution is to keep pressuring the Admins to write better props, and better payout statements. And for them to address any and all manipulation.

Oh forgot to include, the manipulation I was referring to in my post that starts "its not manipulation", was buying or shorting a stock after the criteria for the stock has been met, but the stock has not been halted. Which I should have explained better, or you should have increased your ability to read my mind.

EJcassel: May I respectfully point out that you seem like the kind of idiot that might have shorted GOOG, as it was trading at $100.25. I was the kind of idiot who shorted it. The day before it closed, it fell to around $97. It paid short.

I shorted it at $100.25 before commissions. It was great if it paid off long I still would have made $250. But since it paid out short I made a lot more. Now the thing that haunts me is would I have made more money investing in other stocks instead of wrapping up 100K in GOOGLE all those months. Of course I also quit playing for a couple of those months and was only holding 1000 shares of shorted GOOGLE in my whole portfolio.

Milk if you were trying to insult ejcassel you should have indicated that he was the kind of idiot who was holding GOOGLE long (because it was a sure thing by the numbers). But if you meant to give him a compliment that he was one of those smart people that everyone thought was an idiot because he went against the trend, nice job.

whatever

I will sit back, keep my mouth shut, and wave-ride the manipulation. A month ago I was below both Milkweed110 and davidhartley on the leaderboard. Today I'm ahead of both or them. Clearly I'm not suffering from all this.

You'll have to excuse me for my feeble attempt to improve upon the very things that drive so many players away.

ejcassel

Ejcassel, Congrads for passing me not hard to do given the fact that upuntil last week I only had half of my wealth invested in stock, and I'm really only playing for my own enjoyment not to really beat anyone. BTW when I was playing I made it down to I think 19 or 17, then I quit for totally for 4 months and still was in the top 100 so I don't feel bad.

If you want to make the place better for players, advocate for better written props, not arbitrarily changing the conditions on the ones written. If we can arbitrarily change the conditions why have payout statements at all, we'll just take a vote and when enough people think a stock should payout we'll end it regardless of what the prop says, or the reality of the market.

I was being sarcastic. I'm sorry. I thought that I could get away with it without doing the whole "[/Sarcasm]" thing. I was wrong. Ed strikes me as a very good player, and an excellent person to chat with.

We'll look into closing this early, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen. In the past when we've closed stocks early based on announcements to the contrary, we were dealing with much more short-term issues. Because this is so far out (timewise), it strikes me that much of this could change. What if some major technological breakthrough comes in the next year that makes space tourism a breeze? What if Branson is ousted and his successor picks up the pace? You get the idea.