RE:RE:RE:RE:Thanks again quinlash, for sharing yourBrokerG wrote: You may be right Q however I would think SAFE would be the factor that brings institutional investors more than re-scheduling.
Rather than bash each other can we get a discussion on this subject? Talking to you Keeler
There only needs to be one institutional investor moving in on the stock to change the dynamics of the float and force shorts to cover.
A cover order and a buy order are the same as they take shares from the sellers, regardless if that seller opts to post their shares for sale at a profit or a loss.
The institutional could in fact be holding a short position of their own and covering (buying) shares to close the short. As long as they do this below the opening price of their short they profit on the trade.
The tracking of shorts on any stock is complicated. To track them all and determine likely timing for the cover trade to execute is even more complicated. Hedge funds hold millions, even billions of dollars in place for these transactions. Hedge funds typically hire outside consultants to perform the task of tracking. Those consultants themselves can not only trarget likely timing but can hold their own insider information as to when they should purchase long position shares just prior to their clients executing a large purchase (cover) of shares.
Sometimes retail investors are pressured into selling based on shareprice movements. This is actually when they need to (at minimum) double down on their research and level of commitment and patience for the investment, if they do not then they will likely end up trading at a loss and enabling a hedge fund to cover at a profit.
Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn't but it sounds as if you have researched how a short position differs from a long and pieced it together already.
Best Regards
Q