GFCI: in their PR today, they complained about "naked shorting". short interest as reported by this new link: 107,141; about $17K.
NDOL: lots of talking amongst the longs about how the "shorters will get toasted when they have to cover, yada yada yada. short interest reported on this tool: 57,124 shares, $10K range.
NMKT: verges loves to complain about naked shorting driving NMKT down. short interest reported on this tool: 82,508 shares, $30k-ish.
could plug quite a few in, these were just the first that came to mind. one caveat is that i guess this is only the total amount of shares short this month, not cumulative. one could argue that the total number of shares shorted could be much much bigger than just this initial july listing number.
my initial reaction? pretty small numbers: pretty much coincide with my general feeling that "naked shorting" is too often used as a crutch/excuse for one making poor investment decisions. it's always easier to blame the faceless "naked shorters" than oneself.
but - i'm a pro/con kind of guy, and i know that some highly respected posters here are strong believers in the whole naked shorting thing. i admit also i just ran across this and haven't researched it much.
anyone with any opinions or thoughts about this? anyone plug in a stock and find some surprisingly big or small short interest numbers? anyone want to argue that this is a valid reflection of the true short count, or vice-versa that it's a bogus number designed to keep the small investor in the dark while the big money is made behind the scenes?
like i said - i have a mild predisposition against the whole "naked short" thing, because i see it used so often as a crutch to support poor stock choices. i've even seen RVNM/RVMN/RVEM posts bashing the "naked shorters"! i also admit that i think it's time to run for the hills if a CEO of a company you own starts talking about naked shorts publicly, rather than focusing on his or her own business. but - i'm open to and curious for discussion, and always try to see both sides of the coin.
anyone have any thoughts on this new reporting regulation/otcbb link?
Posted by glassman on :
there's a trick to keeping it off the list blue...
the MM's just trade between themselves so they can roll over the closing date...
Posted by T e x on :
I'm in the dark on that part, glass
MM "A" naked shorts Stock B on date C. How is that naked short "rolled" to MM "D"?
Posted by glassman on :
have you ever heard of check kiting? same principle...
they can make the settlement happen by shorting more...
Posted by glassman on :
reading this site even more closely? i see no mention of failure to deliver at all...
it's simply "short positions"
NASD Rule 3360 has been expanded to require NASD member firms to report their short positions on all over-the-counter ("OTC") equity securities to NASD Regulation, on a monthly basis
this seems to me to be the proof that dispells the rumor that "pennies can't be shorted"
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: have you ever heard of check kiting? same principle...
they can make the settlement happen by shorting more...
I get the principle; I don't get the mechanics of moving a naked short---o, wait, maybe I do. Second MM "lends" shares to first, then third MM to second?
Posted by glassman on :
yes.... they borrow more (if they have to) and then sell to the other and so-on... the MM's don't have the same rules as us poor pukes...
and that's what i'm fairly sure i've been watching for a few days on fhal...
obviously i can't be sure....
as for the one day to settle? i don't think that site is worth much...
Question 4.7: Market makers, as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Exchange Act, include block positioners. Regulation SHO provides an exception to the locate requirement for market makers. Are all block positioners excepted from the locate requirement?
Answer: Rule 203(b)(2)(iii) provides an exception from the locate requirement for short sales effected by market makers, but only in connection with bona-fide market making activities. Rule 203(c)(1) provides that the term “market maker” has the same meaning as in Section 3(a)(38) of the Exchange Act, which defines “market maker” as “any specialist permitted to act as a dealer, any dealer acting in the capacity of a block positioner, and any dealer that, with respect to a security, holds itself out (by entering quotations in an inter-dealer communications system or otherwise) as being willing to buy and sell such security for its own account on a regular or continuous basis.” Posted by T e x on :
I realize I may be jaded...and I do *agree* this is another *tool,* but I also hear MM laughter in the distance..."one step ahead" syndrome... iow? they've had time to plan their reactions, "we" are just figuring it out, lol
Posted by blue_in_MI on :
interesting thoughts. i agree it wouldn't suprise me if there was a little MM monkey business going on. but i admit that i haven't studied enough that am not sure about the mechanisms and loopholes.
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
Blue, this is a good tool you found.
I tried ALMI and IESV stock for July.
almi 95,890 100.00 91,802 1.04
iesv 471,548 N/A 1,629,972 1.00
Readers, first number is short shares. Last number is days to clear (cover).
Second number is percentage of average daily volume (I think) and the third number is average daily volume.
Cool tool, Blue!
Purl Gurl
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
Blue, today ALMI dipped, suddenly, to 1.92 or there 'bouts. Sprang right up again. Using your short position tool, this suggests Market Makers (or client) are shorting to load up then sell on rebound.
I like that tool!
Purl Gurl
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
I write,
"...this suggests Market Makers (or client) are shorting to load up then sell on rebound."
A bit confusing. Front Running and Lost Leader selling and buying. Market Makers can manipulate a stock by sitting on orders instead execution. This is Front Running. Market Makers can also sell and buy their own shares, at any price, to create a downturn or an upturn. This is Loss Leader activity; suffer a small loss in return for larger profits.
Front Running is unlawful but very common. I do not know of any rules against Loss Leader.
Purl Gurl
Posted by blue_in_MI on :
seems like every stock i plug in has a "days to cover" of between 1.0 and 1.1. only tried 10 or 12 stocks, but - seems like every one is right in that range. weird.
Posted by Dustoff 1 on :
Always new about "clients" However the depth of client involement within the MM'S circles varies with the MM.. The type of client is key..But those deals are made on the Golf course in the carts.
Posted by blue_in_MI on :
ok, looking a little closer: based on the short shares and average daily volume, the "days to cover" field always rounds up to 1.00. ALMI is actually the highest i can find at 1.04, after plugging in about 20 of my OTC holdings. anyone run across one that actually tops 1.5 or so days to cover?
Posted by T e x on :
Question 4.7: Market makers, as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Exchange Act, include block positioners. Regulation SHO provides an exception to the locate requirement for market makers. Are all block positioners excepted from the locate requirement?
Answer: Rule 203(b)(2)(iii) provides an exception from the locate requirement for short sales effected by market makers, but only in connection with bona-fide market making activities. Rule 203(c)(1) provides that the term “market maker” has the same meaning as in Section 3(a)(38) of the Exchange Act, which defines “market maker” as “any specialist permitted to act as a dealer, any dealer acting in the capacity of a block positioner, and any dealer that, with respect to a security, holds itself out (by entering quotations in an inter-dealer communications system or otherwise) as being willing to buy and sell such security for its own account on a regular or continuous basis.”
jeez, it never stops...
"block positioner"
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
"anyone run across one that actually tops 1.5 or so days to cover?"
Still playing with your tool, Blue.
Feel good for you?
Tex, think about adding Blue's link to your list of tools for reader's use. This is a darn decent tool.
Purl Gurl
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
"...as being willing to buy and sell such security for its own account on a regular or continuous basis."
This allows Loss Leader. Market Maker, broker, whomever, can buy and sell shares of their own (self contained account) to present a picture of what is not.
No commission fees, no money actually lost nor any profits gained, for Loss Leader. Has to be done on the open market, obviously.
Once a "picture" is painted for common traders, then a Market Maker begins making the bucks.
Only risk of which I know, is when a trader, purely by timing and chance, falls into a Loss Leader; buy or sell when not expected by the Market Maker. However, some Market Makers do buy or sell from traders to maintain a "legitimate" appearance on books.
Nonetheless, blaming Market Makers for stock manipulation is too frequent of an excuse. Market Makers do manipulate share prices but not to the extent which is claimed.
This excuse making is usually made by bag holders.
Purl Gurl
Posted by glassman on :
purl.... this is only for one day per month...
Monthly short interest information will be available on this site after 4 pm ET on the dissemination date.
Trade Date Settlement Date Dissemination Date Publication Date July 7/11/2006 7/14/2006 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 August 8/10/2006 8/15/2006 8/24/2006 8/25/2006 September 9/12/2006 9/15/2006 9/26/2006 9/27/2006 October 10/10/2006 10/13/2006 10/24/2006 10/25/2006 November 11/10/2006 11/15/2006 11/27/2006 11/28/2006 December 12/12/2006 12/15/2006 12/27/2006 12/28/200
it's nearly worthless....
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
Yes, not as much information as we would like.
Maybe in the future, using software, more current and more up-to-date information will be there.
Still, a useful tool for research. This does help readers to look back at past events to learn if short positions are involved. This will help with learning about signals.
Major problem I see is self-reporting. Doubtful that many brokerage houses actually fully report.
What I am seeing is an ongoing effort to make shorting and naked shorting more transparent for the public. Long ways to go, but this is happening which benefits us.
By the time we are really old, forgetful, addled in the head, cannot remember our names nor how to get back home, the markets will be fully transparent!
Purl Gurl
Posted by glassman on :
not one single mention of failure to deliver...
Posted by T e x on :
does allow some back-testing...
agreed
Posted by fourseven on :
quote:Originally posted by blue_in_MI: ok, looking a little closer: based on the short shares and average daily volume, the "days to cover" field always rounds up to 1.00. ALMI is actually the highest i can find at 1.04, after plugging in about 20 of my OTC holdings. anyone run across one that actually tops 1.5 or so days to cover?
Yah man, try XSNX: 1.58 days to cover... short interest is 3,132,233 while daily average volume is 1,982,280
I've got to thread that one into my stockmonkey tool.. this is neat.
If I understand this correctly, they show how many short postions there are outstanding by the 15th of each month? So stocks with high days-to-cover ratios would be more prone to shorts covering, wouldn't they?
Look at this list to find more high-ratio ones.. there's some that have a days-to-cover ratio of 999.99 ... that's got to be a glitch in the system, or dead tickers..
I think it would be good to find ones with high ratios, and among these find ones that are fairly liquid.. they could pop when shorts cover..
Am I right assuming this, or way off the mark here?
Posted by PCola77 on :
I'll admit I just skimmed the posts here, but the days to cover just means if they bought every one of the shares that were traded on an average day, it would take this many days to cover. It rounds anything under 1 to 1 and anything over 1000 to 999.99. Try CWPUF as an example. Also, PAIV is shorted at over 10x average volume, and almost 10 times the float (which is approximately 27million). Read the PAIV thread on the under .10 board for more details if you so desire.
Also, I think Purl Gurl was a bit off on some of the column headings, so I'll paste them here.
Security Name Security Symbol OTC Market Current Shares Short Average Daily Share Volume Days to Cover
You can then get it into excel and sort it however you want. I sorted it by "days to cover" where daily volume is at least 100,000 shares, and the stock symbol is 4 characters. (This eliminates symbols ending in "F" or "Q", etc.)
If you don't know how, or don't feel like taking the time to do it, you can PM me and I'll e-mail you the Excel file if you'd like.
Posted by PCola77 on :
Also, I'd like to read more, but there is plenty of room for interpretation with this list. People have been saying that the list is just for the month of July, but there's got to be a better definition for what that means. It can't just be "there were 100,000 shares sold short in the month of July" without saying "But 99,000 of them have been covered". unless the number is just the net number. My gut instinct is that the number is more "This is how many shares are shorted as of July 15th" meaning net total of all mothns, as of a certain date.
I could be way off, but that's why I said it seems to be open to interpretation.
Thoughts?
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
"Also, I think Purl Gurl was a bit off on some of the column headings, so I'll paste them here.
Security Name Security Symbol OTC Market Current Shares Short Average Daily Share Volume Days to Cover"
This is not in keeping with my article nor with what is presented in my browser.
quote:Originally posted by Purl Gurl: "Also, I think Purl Gurl was a bit off on some of the column headings, so I'll paste them here.
Security Name Security Symbol OTC Market Current Shares Short Average Daily Share Volume Days to Cover"
This is not in keeping with my article nor with what is presented in my browser.
Purl Gurl
Posted by glassman on :
My gut instinct is that the number is more "This is how many shares are shorted as of July 15th"
this my deduction as well.... its not very clear is it?
Posted by PCola77 on :
The other thing that makes me think that is the fact that they have "Current" Previous" and "% Change". Seems like anything else wouldn't make sense for what "Current" would mean.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: My gut instinct is that the number is more "This is how many shares are shorted as of July 15th"
this my deduction as well.... its not very clear is it?
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
"...report their short positions on all over-the-counter ("OTC") equity securities to NASD Regulation, on a monthly basis...
Firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on the 15th of each month...."
One month reports updated the fifteenth of each month. Next update will be August 15, or before if not a business day.
Purl Gurl
Posted by PCola77 on :
By the way, these are the 14 symbols and their "days to cover" that I found with over 100,000 in daily volume that have over 5 "days to cover:
So do you think that would say what I thought it meant, meaning as of that date, these are the net shorts that are out there?
quote:Originally posted by Purl Gurl: "...report their short positions on all over-the-counter ("OTC") equity securities to NASD Regulation, on a monthly basis...
Firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on the 15th of each month...."
One month reports updated the fifteenth of each month. Next update will be August 15, or before if not a business day.
Purl Gurl
Posted by glassman on :
how can they have 34.71 days to cover?
Posted by PCola77 on :
They don't "HAVE" 34.71 days to cover, it means that it would take them 34.71 days to cover if they bought every share on an average trading day. All it is is the (short shares)/(avg volume)
quote:Originally posted by glassman: how can they have 34.71 days to cover?
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
Impossible to determine, PCola.
Wording is very confusing,
"Firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on the 15th of each month...."
This "as of settlement" indicates shorts have been covered. This would disallow any criteria for days to cover. Clearly there is a problem with wording and data presented.
My assumption is similar to yours in that this data does not cover shorts yet to be reported and does suggest shorts are not settled.
Some of your data presents problems because some of the "days to cover" exceed what is in the rules for shorts.
Who knows? A direct inquiry might garner an explanation for these conflicting data.
Purl Gurl
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: They don't "HAVE" 34.71 days to cover, it means that it would take them 34.71 days to cover if they bought every share on an average trading day. All it is is the (short shares)/(avg volume)
quote:Originally posted by glassman: how can they have 34.71 days to cover?
OK gotcha....
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
PCola, you could test this by pulling all your data for OCAI stock.
Simple math using number of short shares reported and daily average volume, should yield 34.71 for a final result. Clearly, the number of OCAI shorts would have to far exceed one-hundred percent of the daily average volume.
Purl Gurl
Posted by PCola77 on :
Correct. Short shares = 6,826,222 Avg daily volume = 196,680 "Days to cover" = 6826222/196680 = 34.7
The thing that would be most interesting would be ahort shares as % of outstanding shares. That would tell which stocks could potentially have short squeezes. Like I said, PAIV O/S is 27 million, and short shares is 239.5 million, which means the float is shorted almost 9x over. As far as I know, there's not a good place to find O/S numbers for multiple stocks, you'd have to call the individual TAs, correct? I just happen to know the O/S of Paiv because I am in it, and there has been a lot of people playing the stock based solely on speculation of a short squeeze.
quote:Originally posted by Purl Gurl: PCola, you could test this by pulling all your data for OCAI stock.
Simple math using number of short shares reported and daily average volume, should yield 34.71 for a final result. Clearly, the number of OCAI shorts would have to far exceed one-hundred percent of the daily average volume.
Purl Gurl
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
34.7072503559080740288793980069148
Heh, heh, heh....
There you go, a good use for this tool which will suggest possible short squeeze events.
Even if those shorts are "attempted" to be covered in fifteen days, this leaves a lot of potential for a short squeeze circumstance to develop; news, a filing, pump up.
Purl Gurl
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
Glassman, check me on this, you know this well.
For settlement, three days. However, my memory wants me to write there is a thirteen day time limit for brokers to cover shorts. Am I correct on the thirteen day limit?
Set aside resetting the clock and all that. I think thirteen days without hanky-panky.
Purl Gurl
Posted by blue_in_MI on :
quote:Originally posted by fourseven: Look at this list to find more high-ratio ones..
you're right, this is much easier to use: can just dump to a .txt file and import into excel and thus be able to sort and run macros on it. i see reading this thread further some others have already done this, interesting to see some of the higher-volume stocks that show up with large short positions. TIDE is of particular interest: there has been some publicity about their high short position, and sure enough - seems to be confirmed by this tool.
and purl, i see you are getting my, er, hopes up and teasing me again, in the hope that i will come and do your yardwork!!! heh
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Purl Gurl: Glassman, check me on this, you know this well.
For settlement, three days. However, my memory wants me to write there is a thirteen day time limit for brokers to cover shorts. Am I correct on the thirteen day limit?
Set aside resetting the clock and all that. I think thirteen days without hanky-panky.
Purl Gurl
yes--at least "traditionally"
have no idea if new regs affect such; however, when I was first becoming aware of NSS/FTD, I remember that then, the "13-day clock" was the ticking deadline...
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
I hope you are not cranky today. I saw that one coming for several days.
"the "13-day clock" was the ticking deadline."
Yes, correct. Using Blue's new toy tool, we can perform a rough guesstimation of the odds of a short squeeze coming into play.
Odds of effecting a short squeeze, as you know, are not good. Nonetheless, a stock exhibiting shorts maybe ten times the average daily volume does suggest those shorters will need to cover within thirteen days, if ethical. This, in turn, suggests heavy buying to cover.
Maybe, once in a great while, Blue's tool might lead to profits through a short squeeze. Unlikely, but a remote chance.
Purl Gurl
Posted by blue_in_MI on :
purl, please try to avoid using the terms "blue's tool" and "short squeeze" in the same sentence
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Purl Gurl: I hope you are not cranky today. I saw that one coming for several days.
"the "13-day clock" was the ticking deadline."
Yes, correct. Using Blue's new toy tool, we can perform a rough guesstimation of the odds of a short squeeze coming into play.
Odds of effecting a short squeeze, as you know, are not good. Nonetheless, a stock exhibiting shorts maybe ten times the average daily volume does suggest those shorters will need to cover within thirteen days, if ethical. This, in turn, suggests heavy buying to cover.
Maybe, once in a great while, Blue's tool might lead to profits through a short squeeze. Unlikely, but a remote chance.
Purl Gurl
moi? why but a'hmm almost pos'tive you've noticed? A'hmm hardly ever cranky, muh dear... A'hh attribute my even mood to healthy, frequent doses of Frederick F'n Chopin...
yup--agreed: any "new improved" tool better than not. Seems like I also recall a site that lists MM positions/holdings, perhaps also monthly. Does it seem far-fetched to envision software that compares datasets and ... over time ... proves itself valuable?
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
Oh shut up, Tex. Not an "imperative" as you write.
If anyone is cranky, that would be me, yes? Call me Laura Wingfield and if you do not catch my literary reference, I will shattered a glass champagne bottle on your head.
"purl, please try to avoid using the terms "blue's tool" and "short squeeze" in the same sentence"
Ah, Blue is leading up to wanting a long squeeze.
Purl Gurl
Posted by T e x on :
you don't like the software idea?
Laura? nuttin to do with you--she has the fewest lines in the "play"
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
"Laura? nuttin to do with you--she has the fewest lines in the play"
Ah, but she is the main focus. She is the story and her ego is as fragile as her glass.
* drums her fingers *
Men never see what is in front of their eyes.
Purl Gurl
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
You know what is one of the main tasks of a mother?
One of these tasks is keeping her family happy. Only a mother can detect a mood simply by a glance or by a single uttered word. A mother is what keeps a family together and healthy of mind. A mother is the keeper of happiness.
Only a mother can detect a mood swing days before that mood displays itself.
You boys have so surrounded yourselves with a masculine world here on these boards, you are not capable of thinking, "A mother is here."
Purl Gurl
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
Toss in an assertive and aggressive mother, this makes for bruised fragile masculine egos.
Is this not the bottom line problem with boards like this one, fragile masculine egos?
Purl Gurl
Posted by fourseven on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
yup--agreed: any "new improved" tool better than not. Seems like I also recall a site that lists MM positions/holdings, perhaps also monthly. Does it seem far-fetched to envision software that compares datasets and ... over time ... proves itself valuable?
what's that other site?
i happen to write software (eg. that does stuff like this)... i could piece together something useful given the right data..
Posted by PCola77 on :
Quick question. MNCP is one that has a pretty decent amount of $ volume on a typical day. The short report says that there were 2.7 million shorted shares, but the volume in the 11 days since the 11th, there have only been 1.37 million shares traded. Even if they bought every share to cover, there's still like 1.3 million shares shorted. Wouldn't that present itself as an opportunity to capitalize if you bought now? Also, I'm curious about the 13 day rule. I must be missing something, because if you short a stock, you aren't doing so thinking that the price will go down in the next 13 days, right, so what were you guys saying is the significance of 13 days?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by PCola77 on :
Another question. This is from the NMKT thread:
"From January 2005 to July 2006 approximately 484 million total aggregate shares of NMKT have traded for a total dollar value of nearly $210.8 million. The total aggregate number of shares shorted in this time period is approximately 37.3 million shares. According to July 10th Total Short Interest, there are 82,508 shares that have been shorted, but not yet covered. Because brokerage firms are only required to disclose what they are short on one day of the month, the average amount of Total Short Volume in stocks is approximately 20 times (20 trading days vs. 1 trading day) the disclosed Total Short Interest figure."
I'm trying to figure out what that means, and just can't seem to get it. Are they saying that since they only have to report on 1 day per month they cover leading up to the report then start shorting again the next day? Seems like that would be a pretty dumb thing to do, so I can't imagine that's what they're saying. Can someone help me figure it out?
Thanks.
Posted by PCola77 on :
Not sure if this is totally coincidence, but MNCP is up about 4.5% since I got in at 11.86 earlier today.
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: Quick question. MNCP is one that has a pretty decent amount of $ volume on a typical day. The short report says that there were 2.7 million shorted shares, but the volume in the 11 days since the 11th, there have only been 1.37 million shares traded. Even if they bought every share to cover, there's still like 1.3 million shares shorted. Wouldn't that present itself as an opportunity to capitalize if you bought now? Also, I'm curious about the 13 day rule. I must be missing something, because if you short a stock, you aren't doing so thinking that the price will go down in the next 13 days, right, so what were you guys saying is the significance of 13 days?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by blue_in_MI on :
this is actually an old PR but i ran across it today on another board:
being a big fan of sarcasm, this line from the PR made me laugh out loud:
"I also understand that the 9.58 million stated short interest does not include failed-to-deliver short sales, failed-to-deliver long sales, another category that the DTCC now cryptically calls, 'open positions,' or lending outside the DTCC (i.e., 'ex-clearing'), which only two guys on Staten Island understand. Thus the real ratio is anyone's guess, but it's somewhere between 107% and infinity. On a positive note, the DTCC continues to maintain that their Stock Borrow Program does not permit the creation of new or counterfeit shares: I think that's good, because otherwise this situation could be getting out of control." "
gotta hand it to byrne on that one, the "otherwise" clause in that last sentence absolutely dripped with wry sarcasm, beauty.
Posted by Livinonklendathu on :
I liked this part:
Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne said, "The decimal is not misplaced -- we have cracked the speed of light.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
