I'm surprised at your comments about 500,000 shares being a negligible amount of shares.
At the last traded price that's over $1.1m in value. I wish I had a negligible amount of money, like $1.1m, laying about around home.
Given the virtual non existence of institutional ownership of the stock, do you think the shorters would have shorted more stock if they could?
IG had already announced they were stopping short selling of the stock not long before suspension because they could never get any to borrow.
I have a screenshot (from shortman) covering from early January 2018 to the middle of Feb 2018.
There were only 3 days where short sales were over 32,000 shares
Based on this (and the 500k figure you quoted) not all shorters are in front at present (but likely to be assuming it relists). Shorters are suffering whilst the stock is in suspension, as they are up for interest etc whilst they are forced to hold their position.
Another point on the 500,000 shares
- last traded price $2.22
Let's say it relists at $1.22, all the shorters cash out.
That means they made a "negligible" $500k (before costs) on the trade.
A few other points for you to consider
- why do you think the shorting of this stock went through the roof on Feb 5,9,13?
- when did the AFR articles come out, including certain dates when some people became aware an article/s was to be published on BIG
- do you see any coincidence between points 1 and 2
- do you think shorters would have thought trading would have been a) suspended and b) for this long?
- do you think there would be more shorts if stock wasn't limited?
- shorters would want to portray as much fear as possible on the HC threads, they would want as many existing long holders as possible to sell on open (drives the price down (more profit) and creates more volume (easier to exit position).
Keen to hear your views.
BIG Price at posting:
$2.22 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
