(Total Views: 135)
Posted On: 07/05/2017 9:55:55 AM
Post# of 72447
I utterly disagree with the claim that the CUSIP did not force some naked shorts to cover. Why did the volume go up tremendously on the conference call day, and two days following, then dry up, and then we had an 800+k day when the stock was again taken down?
I've already posted my reasoning in estimating that about 900k shares were shorted, and then about 800k re-shorted.
The CUSIP and name change not only gave the company a much better (and much more pronounceable) name, but it did create a taxable event for some shorts. Some who covered had to make a quarterly tax payment, and this means that instead of unrealized capital gains, they had to pay money to Uncle Sam.
Why does everyone think that there are only 2 possible positions on this (fruitless) debate? Why does there have to be either a giant naked short position or zero? Why is it not possible that there was a significant but not gigantic naked short position that some did have to cover, and then some entities re-shorted?
I've already posted my reasoning in estimating that about 900k shares were shorted, and then about 800k re-shorted.
The CUSIP and name change not only gave the company a much better (and much more pronounceable) name, but it did create a taxable event for some shorts. Some who covered had to make a quarterly tax payment, and this means that instead of unrealized capital gains, they had to pay money to Uncle Sam.
Why does everyone think that there are only 2 possible positions on this (fruitless) debate? Why does there have to be either a giant naked short position or zero? Why is it not possible that there was a significant but not gigantic naked short position that some did have to cover, and then some entities re-shorted?
(1)
(0)
