Some nonsense simply has to be addressed. The c
Post# of 72447
(Total Views: 131)
Posted On: 01/26/2017 9:09:19 AM
Some nonsense simply has to be addressed.
The claim is being made at lieHUB that because the reported short interest (the twice-monthly number) as of Jan. 10 was about the same as it was in the previous report, that therefore when the new Mako article came out on Jan. 17, no one had been shorting the stock in preparation for the article.
Now come on. That is poor logic even by the standards of lieHUB. We're supposed to believe that no one would have shorted in the week before the article came out?
And that's not even considering the naked short position.
To say that because there was a certain level of reported short interest on a certain day, that therefore a week later there had been no additional shorting -- absurd. By their logic, because no one had landed on the moon on July 19, 1969, therefore Neil Armstrong wouldn't have landed on it on July 20, 1969.
There is a reason why FINRA doesn't report the short interest every day, something that is perfectly feasible with modern technology. And that reason is that people can adjust their short positions with wash sales, buying and re-shorting so they can hide their unsettled thus invisible short during the also-ridiculous 3-day settlement period, so that the shorts don't show up on the twice-monthly numbers.
Someone needs to call these guys on their lies.
The claim is being made at lieHUB that because the reported short interest (the twice-monthly number) as of Jan. 10 was about the same as it was in the previous report, that therefore when the new Mako article came out on Jan. 17, no one had been shorting the stock in preparation for the article.
Now come on. That is poor logic even by the standards of lieHUB. We're supposed to believe that no one would have shorted in the week before the article came out?
And that's not even considering the naked short position.
To say that because there was a certain level of reported short interest on a certain day, that therefore a week later there had been no additional shorting -- absurd. By their logic, because no one had landed on the moon on July 19, 1969, therefore Neil Armstrong wouldn't have landed on it on July 20, 1969.
There is a reason why FINRA doesn't report the short interest every day, something that is perfectly feasible with modern technology. And that reason is that people can adjust their short positions with wash sales, buying and re-shorting so they can hide their unsettled thus invisible short during the also-ridiculous 3-day settlement period, so that the shorts don't show up on the twice-monthly numbers.
Someone needs to call these guys on their lies.
(4)
(0)