Hey bright boy. Today was a rather special day in the markets.... you might have noticed. Volumes were just a 'tad' higher generally and I am going to go out on a limb and say mkts were a little edgy because things just a little "interesting" globally and a little risk off trading in the US overnight.
Seriously? Do you hear yourself? Just like Col, you assert quotes never stated. And again you make my point perfectly by picking one days volumes. LMAO. I know 2.9% (not 2.8% per your round down) of the stock is tied up in shorts. I stated as much several times. It was rather original point from word go (sorry I have to chuckle or I'd cry). Its a low level of shorting historically (recently) for MSB bright boy.
You might have heard, in a land not very far or long ago, there once was a stock called MSB that held a mighty >10% shorted mantle for crying out loud and then the daily blaming of the shorting bogeyman influence actually somewhat valid, if still only one aspect of descending share price pressure - long-holders still the vast majority sellers, mathematically irrefutably so.@col69 you as usual do what you do best and make up never said quotes (and weirdly going back to 2020 (????) - my, I am blushing). Please do show where I said " it has nothing to do with the 18 million short sold shares, it's just the market"?
I just gave you three different time periods and showed you how you were wrong across all and you now quote my own figures back to me. I know 18 million shorts were added in that time period, I just showed the same thing. I also showed you that across 90 days (THAT WOULD BE YOUR FULL GRAPH OH BRIGHT ONE) shorts actually dropped a few hundred thousand and that I could have picked that period (that ironically you lazily did in your graph - LMAO) to prove my point.
You don't even read do you?
You actually perfectly make, exactly, my point by cherry picking your time period as I tried to show you I did not in objective ambition. Without any objectivity, you purposely cherry picked the specific period from 21 Jan (the recent lows of shorts) to 25 Feb to show 17.3 million (not your 18 million actually - its was 36.3-19 million across the period) shorts added for maximum effect in your "its all the shorts" confirmation bias. In fact, as I showed even during that select period of the most rapid acceleration of shorts to suit your argument.
So lets do it again even using exactly the best cherry picked period to suit your argument so we can all blame shorts for the MSB share drop (a popular past-time for the dim witted look for a nasty demon to blame their losses on).
Lets forgo the commonly used 90 day volume average seeing as your new friend doesn't like it, preferring to look at one day anomalies for better perspective (sorry I am still laughing). Trading volumes exactly across that period were 137 million. Shorts added were 17.3 million.
So even though, with no statistical objectivity, we cherry picked exactly the most accelerated period of short addition in the last six months to make your argument rock solid. Net shorts were still only 12.6% of volumes. So long shareholders still alas accounting for 87.4% of net share sales. Even taking the period that most refutes my point, we can still see, whilst of influence, it ain't those big bad shorties pushing and manipulating MSB's stock all on its own. Its just boring old holders selling out on secondary markets to your chagrin.
We all, as MSB shareholders lost a crap load of money today. Some of us would like to objectively understand that than just blaming the boogeyman every time. Try it sometime. Objective analysis for your own benefit of understanding markets rather than listening to those fears of manipulation and the boogeyman short being all to blame every time MSB's share price descends. Stock markets are level II chaos systems and a little more complicated than that for your little intellect or those with far greater can never truly master them (please see LTCM and a few rather bright maths and finance chaps calls Black, Scholes and Merton).
Meanwhile, for people who actually understand markets and more interested in index addition trends, rather than stupid squabbles over manipulation by shorts despite them being <3% of outstanding shares on issue. There have of course been a number of studies on index additions and attempts to earn superior returns on the predictability of index funds having to buy-in rather than wanting to. Whilst Numb nuts rather missed the memo on a massive US tariff risk off day, we have to allow for the larger beta of a stock like MSB in a broad risk off day (ASX200 -0.6%; Russell Mid-cap -1.6%) buh even with today's move given ASX200 addition, significantly bucks the common trend. The ASX200 broadly follows this large scale statistical trend of the SP500 additions and deletions:
Deletions do generally fall ahead of removal and recover thereafter. Additions rally and do little thereafter.
Yes on a broader trading strategy if you are thinking it, buying ASX200 removals rather than additions on the actual day probably more likely to provide higher returns to market returns than buying additions, but I digress. The charts show that MSB behaviour in the last week very much bucking the more normal trends of index additions
There are of course always exceptions to the rule and those are composite average returns; MSB was one, not with the zero % move on addition, but the falling share price before (the announcement was arguably unexpected outside of normal qtrly changes - but unlikely given professional market participants expertise in the area) and most definitely the -9% fall today, even allowing for the overnight US fall and MSB's higher beta correlation.
The full report including ASX200 application for the financially astute:https://plato.com.au/the-hidden-cost-of-indexing-the-ultimate-crowded-trade/
(20min delay)