RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Shoot, I was wrong about SH numbers nukester wrote: Hmmm...
Who would short a boring little casino ?
Thinking out loud here...
1. Covering a short is easy when you already own a stack of shares.
2. Accumulation is a tad easier with downward pressure on the share price.
Bingo... Turns out Kasking is actually Carl Icahn in disguise!
Here I thought Kasking was a straight shooter, turns out he is trying to rustle our shares faster than an unbranded calf on the high plains of Alberta :-)
My guess is that a hedge fund has set up a "pairs trade" with GH being the the shorted side of the trade.
They use computers, sometimes people, to find a stock that's deemed "overvalued" and another stock that is deemed "undervalued".
Here's an example:
If the speculators believe pockets of Canadian Real Estate are showing signs of weakness, they may expect the banks holding those mortgages to falter. So maybe they would "short" TD Bank with the expectation that TD's shares will fall.
In relation to that short, they would take exposure to a different company that's deemed undervalued, say the merged Canadian Pacific Kansas City after weaker earnings.
So $100k into CP - LONG
$100k exposure to TD - SHORT
Over time, they expect to earn a profit on TD shares falling in value, and CP shares climbing in value, all while the market moves either up, down or sideways.
When you are long $100k, and short $100k, then theoretically your trades are "market neutral" because you have exposure in both directions of equal value.
Getting back to it, someone, or something, is being cute with their attempts to short GH to the tune of $300k.
When we wake up one day at the shares are $11, the person short will have a $60k loss (30,000 x $2) plus all the dividends owed plus the interest costs of borrowing the GH shares to short.
Like I said earlier, a very boring way to almost guarantee a capital loss.