posted
The other threads were closed and the lone one is for pr's only, so this thread.
I now believe the 800 billion is to cover shorts. UC issues 300 billion to mm's to cover shorts. We sell to MM's at .0004, they take it down afterwards and we buyback and retire at .0002 or .0003.
We keep the change thank you very much.
It would explain the increase in positive terms. If we sold to mm's at .0004 and bought back at .0002 we could buyback and retire 600 billion.
quote:Originally posted by RaiderJR: The other threads were closed and the lone one is for pr's only, so this thread.
I now believe the 800 billion is to cover shorts. UC issues 300 billion to mm's to cover shorts. We sell to MM's at .0004, they take it down afterwards and we buyback and retire at .0002 or .0003.
We keep the change thank you very much.
It would explain the increase in positive terms. If we sold to mm's at .0004 and bought back at .0002 we could buyback and retire 600 billion.
Raider there's plenty of discussion going on the main thread. It's not for PRs only.
posted
Because the naked short position doesnt exist is why not. You can speculate wildly all you want, but if you think that the MM are still short hundreds of billions of shares you are sadly mistaken. MM incur small naked short positions when tiny stocks run very quickly and trap MM "making a market" which is their job. The MM probably incurred a normal short position when the stock ran to .001 due to being caught on the ask without enough shares but they do not short CMKX for profit, repeat, MM DO NOT SHORT CMKX FOR PROFIT. There is little to no naked short position.
IP: Logged |
Then the Dateline story/investigation about shorts is all for naught because MMs are only trying to provide a liquid market? Might want to let Tom Brokaw know that
Fill me in if I'm being ignorant.
Edit: I'm not doubting your knowledge, maybe your point of view, but only because I dont think anyone really knows what's going on with this stock. We'll find out soon I'm sure.
You can look at this stock through 50 different eyes and come up with 50 different outcomes, not even funny anymore.
IMO the lawyer puts a lot of creedence into this company.
Any of the cmkx bears wanna give me their view on why Roger D Glenn isn't a big deal?
quote:Originally posted by roger7485: Because the naked short position doesnt exist is why not. You can speculate wildly all you want, but if you think that the MM are still short hundreds of billions of shares you are sadly mistaken. MM incur small naked short positions when tiny stocks run very quickly and trap MM "making a market" which is their job. The MM probably incurred a normal short position when the stock ran to .001 due to being caught on the ask without enough shares but they do not short CMKX for profit, repeat, MM DO NOT SHORT CMKX FOR PROFIT. There is little to no naked short position.
quote:Originally posted by Ruh420: Then the Dateline story/investigation about shorts is all for naught because MMs are only trying to provide a liquid market? Might want to let Tom Brokaw know that
Fill me in if I'm being ignorant.
Edit: I'm not doubting your knowledge, maybe your point of view, but only because I dont think anyone really knows what's going on with this stock. We'll find out soon I'm sure.
You can look at this stock through 50 different eyes and come up with 50 different outcomes, not even funny anymore.
IMO the lawyer puts a lot of creedence into this company.
Any of the cmkx bears wanna give me their view on why Roger D Glenn isn't a big deal?
[This message has been edited by Ruh420 (edited August 25, 2004).]
MM might short larger stocks on the unregulated OTCBB and pink sheets for profit, but their risk/reward ratio shorting a subpenny is simply not enough to short it. Why manipulate a subpenny that billions of shares trade hands a day? Why not manipulate some 20,000 shares per day $2.00 stock that no one watches? MM can make more doing legitimate business, why would they waste their time on CMKX?
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
