(Total Views: 270)
Posted On: 01/01/2018 7:35:03 PM
Post# of 72446
When I used the term "tremendously large" I was thinking "more than 1-2% of the outstanding shares". The citing of companies like AMBS and Overstock made me think we were dealing with a larger percentage than that - as they were (100%+ in Overstock, Massive FTDs in AMBS). If the hidden iceberg is < 2% of outstanding shares or if you consider "tremendously large" covering on the CUSIP announcement to be < 2% of outstanding shares then I apologize for using an incorrect term.
I should have stated "a number commensurate with catastrophic naked shorting - 5-10%+ of the outstanding shares, for example".
Really disappointing if the hidden iceberg is only 1-2M shares. Also, does that include the legal shorts who had to cover and exchange? If so, there proved to be "virtually no" naked shorts, as in "< 1% of the outstanding shares" for your clarity.
If so, I'll post no more on the subject as it obviously is so small an amount that it is no longer worth discussing.
Go IPIX!
I should have stated "a number commensurate with catastrophic naked shorting - 5-10%+ of the outstanding shares, for example".
Really disappointing if the hidden iceberg is only 1-2M shares. Also, does that include the legal shorts who had to cover and exchange? If so, there proved to be "virtually no" naked shorts, as in "< 1% of the outstanding shares" for your clarity.
If so, I'll post no more on the subject as it obviously is so small an amount that it is no longer worth discussing.
Go IPIX!
(1)
(3)
All my posts are my own personal opinion and speculation. They should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. No, I am not Scottsmith.
