RE:RE:Shorts at nov 15The best way to illustrate my point is to use the most glaring example. On Nov 6, iiroc released the short sales report as at oct 31st. It includes the short position at oct 31, and the change over that half month period. You can confirm the accuracy of the change by looking at the short report at oct 15. For athabasca ,Ath, the short position changed by 24.3 million shares over the half month period. Now, compare that to trading recorded on all exchanges, not just tsx, and that volume is 7.5 million. So it's impossible that 24.3 million shares were covered during that period. Not even close. Ath was not a fluke, anomaly, or statistical outlier. There were several others with the same obvious impossible trading vs Change in shorts including FEC,GXE,CFW,and even POU! Notice the fact they are all energy names? I only compiled a list where the change in shorts exceeded all daily trading but of course there would be more examples if we assume not all trading was short covering and most trading was typical buyer and seller, not involving any shorting or covering. There are 2 possible explanations. The short activity is real but the covering somehow happened without the buyer or seller reporting the trade on any exchange. OR, my thesis, that the shorts were 'fake' , not genuine, not between arms length parties, however you wish to describe it, in the first place. So the 24.3 million change in shorts does not reflect any sort of reality in the trading of Ath shares because the shares were never truly 'short'. So I look at other small and mid cap energy stocks as my first filter, then I look at huge short positions relative to average trading volumes, and nva makes my list for potential fake shorts. I have trading accounts that allow me to short and in none of them can I short any stock under any circumstance, no matter how much margin I put up for a stock that trades under $1.00. Like Ath and nva. So my conclusion is the short position was 'fake' as was the massive short cover reported at October 31. I pursued an explanation from iiroc and their response was the short must have been transferred to an entity that doesn't belong to or report to iiroc. The same would have had to happen when the short was put on, ie, it was transferred from a non iiroc reporter to an iiroc reporter. Again, I surmise, it's 'fake', or some weasel would call it 'derivative based'. Really? Penny stocks? It yells big red flag for potential manipulation and deceit to me. Ask your broker how this is possible. Ask your securities commission. Ask iiroc. Ask the tsx. None gave me a plausible explanation, but do your own digging and you may not come to the same conclusion.
not4anymore wrote: Please expand on the fake shorts comment.