You can count on it that someone from the short co
Post# of 72446
Posted On: 12/16/2015 10:30:29 AM
You can count on it that someone from the short conspiracy and also people from the traders' pumper/dumper groups were at the meeting.
AlanC, when you first posted the FINRA short data and someone posted the article claiming that most of it was just market makers keeping the market running smoothly, I bought into the lies from that article. (I do think that stocks with huge volume CAN experience a lot of very temporary short selling, but not thinly traded OTC stocks like CTIX). Then as I started watching your numbers every day and realizing that they didn't make sense, especially as I was doubling my position size and would routinely get my trades filled in 100-share lots, which had NEVER happened before -- I realized that you were right. And then, what really topped it off was the rabidity with which the bashers treated your number, even resorting to having an iHUB moderator come over here and make multiple posts about how you should stop posting it, how the moderators here should delete them, and how supposedly those numbers were "scaring off potential shareholders" (but all the allowed bashing at the other site wasn't ? ? ? ?). In fact I had to delete one of his posts because it was so hateful and said terrible things about posters here. You have my public apology for the post I made on the other site many months ago that said the number was meaningless.
But, I also think we don't know how precisely how to understand it. Someone said they knew a trader who had figured out how to interpret it, but our poster said he didn't understand the method when it was explained. If whoever said that is reading this, I sure hope he/she will contact the trader friend again and ask if the trader is willing to explain it again.
And I agree that there is a lot of naked shorting going on, which no statistic is going to reflect.
AlanC, when you first posted the FINRA short data and someone posted the article claiming that most of it was just market makers keeping the market running smoothly, I bought into the lies from that article. (I do think that stocks with huge volume CAN experience a lot of very temporary short selling, but not thinly traded OTC stocks like CTIX). Then as I started watching your numbers every day and realizing that they didn't make sense, especially as I was doubling my position size and would routinely get my trades filled in 100-share lots, which had NEVER happened before -- I realized that you were right. And then, what really topped it off was the rabidity with which the bashers treated your number, even resorting to having an iHUB moderator come over here and make multiple posts about how you should stop posting it, how the moderators here should delete them, and how supposedly those numbers were "scaring off potential shareholders" (but all the allowed bashing at the other site wasn't ? ? ? ?). In fact I had to delete one of his posts because it was so hateful and said terrible things about posters here. You have my public apology for the post I made on the other site many months ago that said the number was meaningless.
But, I also think we don't know how precisely how to understand it. Someone said they knew a trader who had figured out how to interpret it, but our poster said he didn't understand the method when it was explained. If whoever said that is reading this, I sure hope he/she will contact the trader friend again and ask if the trader is willing to explain it again.
And I agree that there is a lot of naked shorting going on, which no statistic is going to reflect.
(0)
(0)