"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.
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....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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
Posts: 1698 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
posted
purl, please try to avoid using the terms "blue's tool" and "short squeeze" in the same sentence
Posts: 1698 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
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"
posted
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."
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..
-------------------- the market is not your mother Posts: 1282 | From: Montreal | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5508 | From: Southeastern PA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1698 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
