General comments/chat, page-21477

Thanks for that LW.

Of course everything the “big boys” do, including shorting is shrouded in secrecy. Understandable as you can’t have an informed mug punter jeopardising your profits. Please note the big boys are upset at having to sit an ethics test, most likely as they continue to fail. That should explain a lot.

As explained by others, a share can be shorted multiple times therefore it’s not difficult for short sales to account for 30 or 40% of the days sales.

As for the analogy of the Bank lending my money it’s a mutually beneficial relationship. They pay me say 2% and they charge the borrower 4%. However the shorter who sells a share for 40 cents and covers it at 30 makes 10 cents per share: unfortunately innocent shareholder me just lost 10 cents per share.

As for valuations, in this instance it was the instos who pushed the price from the mid 30’s into the 40’s. They must have thought it a reasonable price. But can you tell us who appointed the shorters as the arbiters of “ fair value”.

Finally could you explain why any fund manager or insto would pay 40 cents a share then lend out their shares to shorters to drive the price down to 20 cents. That doesn’t come across as sound financial management to me.

Based on earlier runs ADN should have retraced back to 35 to 37 cents but this retracement was different to all the others: shorters were involved.

Cheers