This is what I mean about a useless argument:
Post# of 72440
(Total Views: 207)
Posted On: 03/08/2018 8:36:39 PM
This is what I mean about a useless argument:
sox040713 Thursday, 03/08/18 06:12:12 PM
Re: AlanC post# 220396 0
Post #
220400
of 220421
61% (168K) shares were shorted and the stock closed up 19%? The shorts didn’t do a very good job...
New investors, the statement "61% of today's volume was short sales" wasn’t in the source file. The most recent short interest is < 1% of the OS and the most recent failure-to-deliver (naked short) # is a measly 4,581 shares. IMHO interpreting short volume as actual short sales is incorrect. This is what FINRA, the exact same source which you used to post the #, said.
"Thank you for contacting FINRA’s Office of the Ombudsman. Regarding your question, it would be incorrect to assume that short sales comprise 32% of the total volume on that trading day for IPIX. FINRA publishes the daily short sale volume pursuant to an SEC mandate; however, there are various trading anomalies that result in the reported short sale volume often being exaggerated. Thus, the true total short sales volume may be significantly lower than the volume that is reported. Third parties sometimes ignore this and try to claim the ratio is valid to further their own objectives."
keltoi Thursday, 03/08/18 08:28:28 PM
Re: sox040713 post# 220400 0
Post #
220421
of 220421
No...The MM's had to sell 61% short to make the trades that were were to be executed because they didn't have any readily available shares.
So they sold short to make those trades and will have to cover according to the rules.
Get It Straight.Stop finagling facts.
Kelt
This argument has worn out it's useful purpose and has become an Albatross here.Drop it and move on and stop "pride" from getting in the way.
sox040713 Thursday, 03/08/18 06:12:12 PM
Re: AlanC post# 220396 0
Post #
220400
of 220421
61% (168K) shares were shorted and the stock closed up 19%? The shorts didn’t do a very good job...
New investors, the statement "61% of today's volume was short sales" wasn’t in the source file. The most recent short interest is < 1% of the OS and the most recent failure-to-deliver (naked short) # is a measly 4,581 shares. IMHO interpreting short volume as actual short sales is incorrect. This is what FINRA, the exact same source which you used to post the #, said.
"Thank you for contacting FINRA’s Office of the Ombudsman. Regarding your question, it would be incorrect to assume that short sales comprise 32% of the total volume on that trading day for IPIX. FINRA publishes the daily short sale volume pursuant to an SEC mandate; however, there are various trading anomalies that result in the reported short sale volume often being exaggerated. Thus, the true total short sales volume may be significantly lower than the volume that is reported. Third parties sometimes ignore this and try to claim the ratio is valid to further their own objectives."
keltoi Thursday, 03/08/18 08:28:28 PM
Re: sox040713 post# 220400 0
Post #
220421
of 220421
No...The MM's had to sell 61% short to make the trades that were were to be executed because they didn't have any readily available shares.
So they sold short to make those trades and will have to cover according to the rules.
Get It Straight.Stop finagling facts.
Kelt
This argument has worn out it's useful purpose and has become an Albatross here.Drop it and move on and stop "pride" from getting in the way.
(2)
(0)Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼