(Total Views: 409)
Posted On: 11/29/2018 3:33:41 PM
Post# of 72446
The article says that short positions have to prove the borrow. That is easily done at legitimate brokerages that have accounts held by LEGAL shorts.
In no way does that paragraph say that the LEGAL shorts have to cover and re-short. They merely have to prove the borrow, which any legitimate national brokerage like Fidelity, Schwab, etc. does before they let you short.
It is fallacious to say that the volume after the name change was by legal shorts. It was not. Legitimate brokerages merely transfer the short position to the new CUSIP and the shorter does not have to do anything.
ILLEGAL shorts, however, have to cover. That's part of that high volume in those 3 days.
In no way does that paragraph say that the LEGAL shorts have to cover and re-short. They merely have to prove the borrow, which any legitimate national brokerage like Fidelity, Schwab, etc. does before they let you short.
It is fallacious to say that the volume after the name change was by legal shorts. It was not. Legitimate brokerages merely transfer the short position to the new CUSIP and the shorter does not have to do anything.
ILLEGAL shorts, however, have to cover. That's part of that high volume in those 3 days.
(4)
(0)
