Zenabis Global Inc. T.ZENA

Is time running out for shorts?

[AL8888]

I'm not an expert, but I think that anyone who held a short position after the date of record on the rights offering is now not only short on the shares but also owes the rights to whomever the shares were borrowed from. Just like they would owe a dividend if (on the record date) they were short on a stock that paid a dividend. I think management made a smart move on this strategy. The shorts now have to cover both rights and shares. If they start buying one, it drives the price up on the other. As of October 31st the short count was 12.84 million shares. It will be interesting to see how much of this has been covered on the next update. The people who are bashing the stock are either trying to cover or get the price low enough to take a long position. Since we have new experts like 199David (profile created today - Hi Sotippy/Truthseeker we still see ya!) spouting the same old garbage, I would assume they still have more covering to do. Time is running out for the rights though, and the supply is dwindling as they are being exercised. Tick Tock MFs

[Cashtown]

Really? Interesting, I hadn't considered that aspect of it. Do you know this for a fact or an educated assumption? Either way, I agree with you that time is running out for shorts and I am very excited for the first few weeks after the rights offering closes. I exercised all my rights.

[AL8888]

That's why I said I'm not an expert. Lol! There are different rules depending on whether the rights are transferable or not. It is confusing, and I may be wrong but I think the way it works is that if there are other rights in a brokerage's inventory that have not been exercised, brokerages may be able to use those to cover the short position on the rights. However, if they aren't

[Healthy1wins]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[OneWhoBlazes]

Shorta DO NOT have to cover rights. Rights are attached to the share at the record date. So whoever owned shares at that time gets the rights , nomatter how the shares were traded.. a share is a share is a share. The shorts have to cover “ shares “ .. not attached rights also. The rights already went to whoever bought the share.

[AL8888]

Really? Are you sure? Does a short have to cover a dividend if the stock he has shorted declares one? Yes, they do, so then why not a right?

[OneWhoBlazes]

No. The short would not have to cover a dividend because the div only gets paid out once per share. The short sold a share, and the buyer recieves the payout straight from issue, there is nothing for the short to pay back, he just sold the share, he didnt creat new shares out of thin air and add them to the float.

[AL8888]

If you don't think a short has to cover a dividend, you really should educate yourself a bit more. I am 100% that shorts have to cover dividends.  Read this link and see if it cchanges your mind; https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/if-investor-short-dividendpaying-stock-record-date-are-they-entitled-dividend.asp What I was less sure of, and was  looking for

[199David]

Time will tell. The information from Health Canada can be used for reference. supply > demand or supply < demand? Made decision yourself Table 1: Preliminary Summary of Second Quarter Data Collected under the Cannabis Tracking System (as of 2019-10-25) Source of cannabis sold and in inventory July 2019Footnote * August 2019 Dried (kg

[OneWhoBlazes]

It makes sense that they would have to cover rights. However if the shares were all “ borrowed” there could be millions extra , and therefore would artificially create more rights then the actual amount based on share count. So that is not happenening 

[Cashtown]

Well that's disappointing, I was hoping for extra fodder to screw these guys over.

[AL8888]

So if I own 1000 shares in my account at the brokerage, and someone wants to short sell 1000 shares, the brokerage borrows them from my account and lets the shorter sell my shares to a buyer. The buyer is now the person who has 1000 shares and the rights that went with them. If the shorter doesn't cover his position before the date of record, he would not only owe me my 1000 shares but also

[Foxbat143]

The owner of the shares is the LONGS and not the SHORTS

[AL8888]

Correct, but if you own shares and your brokerage lets a shorter borrow your shares, the person who bought your shares from the shorter is LONG as well as you. In fact, his shares have the rights, and when the shorter buys back his position to cover, you should not only get your shares back but the rights as well. A short position creates two owners of shares who are LONGS and one person who has

[Foxbat143]

Also when a person shorts a stock he is in the negative. When he covers his position by purchasing he closes his position because he previously sold the shares. He owns nothing because he already sold or shorted the position. 

[AL8888]

Yes, that's how it works, but he is also responsible for any privileges the original stock holder is entitled to during the time he held his short position.