There used to be a newsletter that specialized in finding good companies with large short positions against them. I think it was called something like "Short Squeeze Report" or something like that. Anyway, the theory is that when a company with good prospects has a large short position against it, positive news will cause all those shorts to have to cover, thus fueling huge demand for the stock, AKA a "short squeeze." As I recall, the ads for that newsletter bragged about market-beating returns.
So, the premise that mentioning a short number would scare off investors seems to have it backward. An investor who knows that the company has great prospects -- e.g., 3 different drugs with multiple applications, all of which have succeeded thus far in clinical trials -- would seem to be a company that would offer great opportunities if any kind of significant short position exists. It should not scare off investors, it should attract them. (Of course, an experienced investor also knows that not all of the short volume intraday is held short at the close.)
Sox, per your question to Alan, "Do you agree that shorts love to tell others there’s a large short position every day" --
During the years I have read lieHUB, admittedly much less frequently in the recent past than I used to, shorts have consistently denied that there was any significant short position. When the 1.2 million legal short position was reported, many avowed bashers claimed it was insignificant. In fact, given that the "real" float is quite small for this stock -- because so much stock is held by the officers and some other entities, and I have knowledge of quite a large total of shares held by individual investors who I believe when they tell me their holdings --
in reality 1.2 million short shares is a significant percentage, and it's going to be hard to cover quickly. This is a huge plus for the stock. When news hits, the move upward will be violent and swift, because there are few shares that are not already in strong hands.
So, the premise that mentioning a short number would scare off investors seems to have it backward. An investor who knows that the company has great prospects -- e.g., 3 different drugs with multiple applications, all of which have succeeded thus far in clinical trials -- would seem to be a company that would offer great opportunities if any kind of significant short position exists. It should not scare off investors, it should attract them. (Of course, an experienced investor also knows that not all of the short volume intraday is held short at the close.)
Sox, per your question to Alan, "Do you agree that shorts love to tell others there’s a large short position every day" --
During the years I have read lieHUB, admittedly much less frequently in the recent past than I used to, shorts have consistently denied that there was any significant short position. When the 1.2 million legal short position was reported, many avowed bashers claimed it was insignificant. In fact, given that the "real" float is quite small for this stock -- because so much stock is held by the officers and some other entities, and I have knowledge of quite a large total of shares held by individual investors who I believe when they tell me their holdings --
in reality 1.2 million short shares is a significant percentage, and it's going to be hard to cover quickly. This is a huge plus for the stock. When news hits, the move upward will be violent and swift, because there are few shares that are not already in strong hands.
5
