With regard to the lack of correlation between the shorts...

With regard to the lack of correlation between the shorts reduction and the sales data, it could be explained by 'shady' deals between borrower and lender, who may well be 2 entities under the same umbrella. One hypothesis (you know I love 'em) which is clearly supported by the data could be: Major entity (no names mentioned) buys up big then reports a change in major holding (as they are legally required to do) to a subsidiary entity thus implying a large short position. The market is spooked and the price plummets as a resort, allowing some other entity acquire shares at a large discount. Now this would be seen by the authorities as being quite legal as all legal reporting has been completed but in reality it is a large entity with the wherewithal to perpetrate such action. So price manipulation of the highest order, again at the expense of the poor retail investor.

Is there a forensic accountant amongst us who would be interested in looking at the data reported for the becoming a / ceasing to be a major shareholder and compare it with the 'reported' short data? The major shareholder change data is quite detailed for each transaction which includes data for the trade of even 1 share in a particular trade, this may be some of the 'smoke and mirrors created to make difficult / tedious to work through so many pages (in excess of 250 pages.

Any thoughts?