Hey ignoramus, you indeed can't "make this up" and I don't, unlike yourself (just sayin'
).
"hey the
@bedger 's of the world claim the shorts aren't the problem - you can't make this stuff up"
Uuugh, I simply gave you mathematical facts. Try it sometime, rather than often your meaningless and baseless and always subjective opinion, all day everyday.
Are, you saying at last ASIC reporting, the shorts are not "less than 37 million shares on a 1.270 billion outstanding share issue"? Do you believe shorts are not recently "typically be 200-400K of a typical trading day"? Do you not believe the ASX figures "that shows 7 million shares traded on a 90-day average"?The ASX given 90-day average volume for MSB is 7 million shares:
The shares on issue 1.27 billion as said.
Lets look in more detail for you, seeing as you spend all day on these threads but clearly ignore the most basic of data available to ALL MSB shareholders - we are literally talking the most basic of data here and you dismiss like a petulant child. We will actually find, that whilst typical short trading patterns in the last month were indeed 200-400K in range,
you could also simply argue no Bedger, if you you look at the 90 day shorting activity they are more typically net averaging ZERO across the range - due to short position reductions. Gasp!
The beautiful thing you show in your ignorance, refuting your counter-argument yourself is indeed the 90-day MSB short positions fell, so had, across 90-days, an overall buying influence on the stock:
So when I said shorting might typically be 200K-400K of daily trading, I was actually being generous to the counter argument to be a little more objective in the quick data evidenced based suggestion I was making. In fact I could have been an ass, not unlike you are being in your unevidenced dismissal and pointed out that in 90 day's the net shorts added were....wait for it....less than zero i.e. reduced. And told you, with perfect mathematical evidence, that in 90 days the net selling zero, zip, nada (or even a small positive buying effect) as shorts actually went from the base on that little early spike on your graph, from 36.8 million to 36.3 million across the period - and I'd have been mathematically and irrefutably correct of course in saying they had no selling pressure effect on MSB, across 90-days.
Now forgive me, I know maths not your strong suite, and blindly typing your opinion is, but lets just focus on the recent selling from $3.37 highs to now. That's what I did to be a bit more objective and specific to recent share price falls. Oh look the shorts went from approx. 31.8 million to 36.3 million across roughly 36 trading days. But that's only 1.25K shares short sold net a day on average. Well below my 200-400K range.
No Col, so to be very cautious on my evidence backed arguments, I didn't cherry pick the best dates to best make my argument. Quite the opposite. I simply looked the last month of trading, taking the heaviest and most relevant period of trading to the discussion, and ignoring outliers, the typical range was in around 200K-400K shorts net per day.
But do, along with others, keep going with your VERY subjective and rarely mathematically evidenced opinion on shorting and I will happily have fun, showing your basic innumeracy every time.
(20min delay)