RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:No position here but interesting stuff going on...Don't care, but, Why did anybody buy Tesla at $1000? Or bitcrash at $70,000? Greed.
charliebitmyfin wrote: the shorts have made a killing over the last year - why would they open new short positions at these low prices?
Maxmoe wrote: No Joe, you got it right. I suspect he makes no cents of this due to the blinding rage from losing all his dollars in tlry. Yes centsless, there is a large short position. The deal was a done deal meaning the buyers "owned it" that same day. Before month end. So if you want to insinuate the 70 million shares were 100% bought by shorts, you'd still be "short" some buyers. Further, there may have been some shorts that covered by purchasing the issue, but not ALL of them. To insinuate canocorn or mgmt were somehow coerced by the shorts to do a deal to help them cover or were somehow "in on it" and gave shorts a heads up is just preposterous. Shake off the rage. You sound like you're repeating a trumpian raging big lie to suit your own "no position here BUT" narrative. Based on the collapse after the deal, if anything, it looks more like the shorts piled on after the deal. Not before. If so , shorts will be higher at May 31st, than May 15 which they were. Much higher. And maybe higher again on the 15th of June. Yeah, we'll see then Joe , but I don't think the big red shoes fit your feet.
navajojoe wrote: CommonCentsforDollars wrote:
So you are saying the company sold 70 million shares just so 8 million shorts could cover?
Get real.
8 million? Are you retarded? I provided the snap shot of what the short position was,..
try 50 million shares you ph*cking clown.
.
I guess we will see if all 50 million disappear with the next report. If not, then I suppsoe you may be wrong?