Schwab up to 40%

[therealisaching]

paying 70% today

[agedhippie]

Jun 7, 2017 11:13:10 GMT -5 therealisaching said:

paying 70% today

I think that works out at 6% a month. So the price has to drop 6% to break even in the immediate term.

[tomson1355]

70% is what they are paying to lenders.  They are likely charging something like 100% to borrowers.  So, it's more like 8% or 9% a month.  Either way, it's steep.

[duncanbrent]

Yeah, I got 70% too. That is the highest it's ever been for me in the last 5 years. They really have to know something or hopefully it's a feint on MNKD's part and they pull off a hat-trick.

[n8]

So this applies now more than ever?

"Stocks with short interest above 40% are highly susceptible to potential short squeezes. Stocks with smaller floats and high short interest have the highest danger of short squeezing as shortable shares become scarcer more quickly."

Read more: Short Interest www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortinterest.asp#ixzz4jNntr1DP

[n8]

And what about this? Does this sound right?

"If a stock has a high short interest, short positions may be forced to liquidate and cover their position by purchasing the stock. If a short squeeze occurs and enough short sellers buy back the stock, the price could go even higher."

Read more: Short Interest: What It Tells Us www.investopedia.com/articles/01/082201.asp#ixzz4jNshqob7

[duncanbrent]

Fingers crossed. That would be great!

[agedhippie]

Jun 7, 2017 23:46:15 GMT -5 n8 said:

So this applies now more than ever?

"Stocks with short interest above 40% are highly susceptible to potential short squeezes. Stocks with smaller floats and high short interest have the highest danger of short squeezing as shortable shares become scarcer more quickly."

Read more: Short Interest www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortinterest.asp#ixzz4jNntr1DP

It's not a bad rule of thumb. However in this case if you look at the level of shorting over time you can see that most have been in for a ages and so have a big gain to trade against the interest payments. Even if they only took a short position before the split they would still be up about 50% over 3 months. The shorts can hold for some time yet with relatively little pain unless they got in in the last couple of months.

[n8]

Would you need an increase of shorts to keep the sp down or would the original number suffice? 

[agedhippie]

Jun 8, 2017 11:01:59 GMT -5 n8 said:

Would you need an increase of shorts to keep the sp down or would the original number suffice? 

That's a tricky question to answer. You can only drive down the price by shorting on a weak stock because otherwise the buyers will snap up anything you want to sell. The market always has deeper resources than you do as Bill Ackman found with Herbalife.

I think the answer to your question is that the number of shorts is not hugely significant. It's all about selling pressure and downward pressure can come from longs taking profits, shorts selling short, lack of buyers to pick up routine sales,... If the AMF is loaning out their shares (and I would have to think they would be) then between the the AMF and the institutions there should be enough shares out there to cover the short position before you get to the retail segment. Executive summary - I don't see a short squeeze as the lenders are almost entirely long term holders.

[duncanbrent]

Up to 72% today....

[centralcoastinvestor]

Jun 12, 2017 12:07:58 GMT -5 duncanbrent said:

Up to 72% today....

I hope the shorts choke on it.  JMHO. 

[kite]

why is the percentage rising?

[orlon]

I might be wrong, but it appears to me that the more people lend their shares out for a higher interest rate the more they make back in dividends only to reinvest in shorting the additional shares. And then they wonder why the stock price tumbles. Then there are those who say it doesn't matter because collectively the retail seller/buyer's share is minuscule in the overall scheme of things, much like the Canadian investor who stated a few weeks ago that this is his sole source of income. I continue to not understand the logic here. If I continue to undermine a stock how can I expect it to rise with good news, especially when others who profess the company is great, lend to short?

[brotherm1]

Jun 8, 2017 11:18:58 GMT -5 agedhippie said:

Jun 8, 2017 11:01:59 GMT -5 n8 said:

Would you need an increase of shorts to keep the sp down or would the original number suffice? 

That's a tricky question to answer. You can only drive down the price by shorting on a weak stock because otherwise the buyers will snap up anything you want to sell. The market always has deeper resources than you do as Bill Ackman found with Herbalife.

I think the answer to your question is that the number of shorts is not hugely significant. It's all about selling pressure and downward pressure can come from longs taking profits, shorts selling short, lack of buyers to pick up routine sales,... If the AMF is loaning out their shares (and I would have to think they would be) then between the the AMF and the institutions there should be enough shares out there to cover the short position before you get to the retail segment. Executive summary - I don't see a short squeeze as the lenders are almost entirely long term holders.

You lost me when you said you don't see a short squeeze because the lenders are mostly long term holders. I thought short squeezes are caused by shorts not being able to cover because of insufficient selling volume and strong buying volume. How do the lenders of the short shares figure into the equation? Wait, I think I see now what you are saying: you believe there would be insufficient buying volume to cause a short squeeze because most of the shares outstanding are owned by the Mann Foundation and institutions? (edit: in other words you don't believe there are enough shares in the float to create sufficient buying volume to create a short squeeze?)