I agree re IMD's business. I suspect that the statement re the...

I agree re IMD's business. I suspect that the statement re the Bain deal avoiding dilution was putting a positive spin on a very difficult situation - they had embarked on a rights issue but it was going to fail because the share price had been driven down (apparently by shorters) and stayed down. I repeat that I am not opposed to shorting per se, only to shorting on the main market. Events like this IMD event was one of the reasons that I am opposed to shorting on the main market: Shorters issue new shares[*], which drives down the price. When there is a rights issue in a relatively low-liquidity company, they can force the share price below the rights issue price and hence damage the company by causing its rights issue to fail. They did this to IMD, but the company escaped via the Bain deal. Had they not escaped, the company would have been seriously damaged by the rights issue failure, and the sole reason for the failure would have been the short selling. So shorters can profit by deliberately damaging a company, where the damage is from the short-selling itself. To me, that's unacceptable. That's one reason why I am opposed to short selling on the main market.

[*]Supporters of shorting on the main market argue that new shares are not issued because existing shares are borrowed. That argument is nonsense, because shares are fungible.

And just in case anyone still hasn't got it: I am not opposed to shorting per se, only to shorting on the main market.