RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:pumpers..here is realityI'm merely augmenting your data, not providing an innacurate narrative, as you suggest.
The consolidated short reports you referenced are the twice montly aggregated Canadian-only numbers that are two weeks behind and submitted by the exchanges.
The Ortex data I referenced are comprised of the actual daily lend totals from 85% of the US share lenders --
considered to be the worlds largest combined pool of agent lenders, prime brokers, and broker-dealers. Additionally, for the majority of the past several months, Ortex showed PYR interest at above 7% of the free float and over 5.5 million shares shorated, usually running at more than 99% utilization, meaning every share lendable for shorting was lent, almost every day.
While these numbers may not seem like much, most companies have a much larger, much less "compressed" float than PYR.
Consider that as of today, the average public float of a Nasdaq listed company is 117.65 MM shares. And the average shares outstanding of a Nasdaq listed company is 167.22MM shares.
Source:
https://www.gurufocus.com/term/FloatPercentageOfTSO/ndaq/Float-Percentage-Of-Total-Shares-Outstanding/Nasdaq So the average public float is more than twice PYR’s float of 54.7MM shares.
Source:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/pyr With Peter alone holding 50%, and hardcore longs and other insiders another 20-25%, PYR, has close to 3/4 of the shares long held.
Therefore, PYR’s short interest is very compressed. It’s not 5-7% of a normal Nasdaq company, it’s 5-7% of a Nasdaq company with less than half the normal float.
Because of so little float, fairly low volume (until very recently), and a very large contingent of longs who are focused on holding not trading, it’s much easier for the shorts to influence the price daily.
The overall impact is comparable to a company with an average float size having a short interest of 10-14%.
Finally, true short interest is generally considered to be at least twice what even the best data shows.
Why?
Because only registered institutions have to report their positions to the regulators. Many hedge funds, even gigantic well-known ones, remain unregistered on purpose to avoid having to report. Therefore, the shares they own -- and the shares they subsequently short and/or lend to other short sellers -- are done so anonymously.
It's not just shorting that is an issue; it's the ability to move the price of a low float, low volume stock using anonymous holdings that can sometimes be at play.
Zaphod wrote: So under 2 % Nov 15 and 5 now still not even close to heavy shorting. Nothing that would affect the price.
More damage is done by pumpers spewing bs instead of accurate realistic news.