Guest ValueCarl Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I recommended Facebook do this just today, but only on GOLDMAN's LIFE, however! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_M._Byrne "Dutch Auction" IPO Byrne initiated a Dutch auction IPO of Overstock.com in 2002. The company was one of the first to go public under a system advanced by WR Hambrecht + Co to retain a greater share of capital within the company rather than going to the investment bank underwriters used in conventional public offerings. Byrne has said that competing banks reacted against this, attempting to obstruct the success of the offering through negative reports and by shorting the company's stock.[19] When Google later in 2004 went public via a Dutch auction IPO, Byrne commented that Wall Street firms similarly pushed negative stories, but did not keep it from going forward successfully.[20] Four years after the OpenIPO, one official of Hambrecht, its now former co-CEO Clay Corbus was added to Overstock's board of directors.[21] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 what is this about? "Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne had better timing than Francis Chou. Back on May 20 to May 24, 2010, Byrne's 100% controlled High Plains Investments LLC dumped 140,000 common shares at an average price of $22.11 per share and collected over $3 million in proceeds. " I think like most CEO's, Byrne sells some shares annually and they are pointing out the fact that he sold at a good price. Big deal! If he sold a really big chuck of his shares, then it would be something to be concerned with. He sold around 2%! How is Dr. Byrne's father doing? I don't see him on the seven person board--just six--and I haven't located a PR where he left since re-arriving in 2010. It's there, dig around. He left the board as his health was not good. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrB Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 How is Dr. Byrne's father doing? I don't see him on the seven person board--just six--and I haven't located a PR where he left since re-arriving in 2010. http://investors.overstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131091&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1560370&highlight= http://www.overstock.com/leadership What is not stated here for some odd reason, is that Warren E. Buffett's involvement with Geico was triggered, initially, by Ben Graham's own darling position established in the 1940's as a core holding in his Investment Partnership before being taken to the stock market wood shed due to poor underwriting in the 70's. I am certain Buffett was involved with Geico before Jack Byrne was hired to spearhead the turnaround, and unfortunately, Graham who died in 1975, never lived to see the magic which included Buffett swallowing the whole enchilada as part of the Berkshire Empire today. It seems to me, this Wiki history should be updated by intimate parties with the will to do so. ValueCarl, Your comment above was a painful reminder of how I misunderstood the Geico deal for years; in particular the risk reward ratio that Buffett took on. I found Alice Schroeder's comments extremely helpful, assuming that she is correct in retelling the story of course. Anyway, it might be old news to you, but for me it was an eye opener. I did not get the following at all. a) At what point of the "replacement process" of old management did Buffett invest? b) How instrumental was Jack Byrne to Buffett's decision? c) How did Buffett structure his "investment"? d) What was Buffett's own assessment of the risk involved? If you don't know the answers to the above and are interested then read p.430-438 of Snowball again; I found it fascinating. If nothing else, you will appreciate the irony of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 MrB, much thanks and I would never discount Alice Schroeder's version of the stories contained in Warren E. Buffett's biography. To be truthful, I have only scanned "Snowball" without ever reading it cover to cover. My knowledge of The Graham tie ins, came from Janet Lowe readings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 More FUN for this FIGHTER, DR. Byrne! http://www.4-traders.com/OVERSTOCK-COM-INC-10372/news/OVERSTOCK-COM-INC-Overstock-com-Announces-Court-Declines-to-Seal-Evidence-in-Goldman-Sachs-Merrill-L-14205152/ SALT LAKE CITY, March 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Overstock.com, (NASDAQ: OSTK) today announced that in its stock manipulation suit against Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch the court denied mostly all of defendants' motion to seal the evidentiary record on the summary judgment hearing. The ruling is significant because the evidence submitted to the court lays out in detail the means by which Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch used naked short selling, in concert with others, to manipulate downward Overstock.com's share price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stahleyp Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 what is this about? "Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne had better timing than Francis Chou. Back on May 20 to May 24, 2010, Byrne's 100% controlled High Plains Investments LLC dumped 140,000 common shares at an average price of $22.11 per share and collected over $3 million in proceeds. " I think like most CEO's, Byrne sells some shares annually and they are pointing out the fact that he sold at a good price. Big deal! If he sold a really big chuck of his shares, then it would be something to be concerned with. He sold around 2%! As always, thanks for that Sanj! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanMaestro Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 ValueCarl, Your comment above was a painful reminder of how I misunderstood the Geico deal for years; in particular the risk reward ratio that Buffett took on. I found Alice Schroeder's comments extremely helpful, assuming that she is correct in retelling the story of course. Anyway, it might be old news to you, but for me it was an eye opener. I did not get the following at all. a) At what point of the "replacement process" of old management did Buffett invest? b) How instrumental was Jack Byrne to Buffett's decision? c) How did Buffett structure his "investment"? d) What was Buffett's own assessment of the risk involved? MrB, my Buffett books are already in boxes ready for the moving to a new apartment. Can you indulge me? Are this right? (I was preparing a post precisely on this, but it will have to wait hehehe) a) Buffett interviewed the already CEO Jack Byrne in a hotel room . When Byrne received the first call from Buffett he did not know who he actually was and dismissed a possible meeting ... only to be pulled back by the ear by former CEO Davidson (the same that instructed a very young Buffett on the insurance business on a Saturday afternoon) b) That interview was key to Buffett deciding to invest. "If they got the right person in to run it, I think he could turn it around". "He spoke like an owner as distinct from a manager or a bureaucrat." c) First he took part of the reinsurance, paid a call to the DOI, and then he backstopped the capital raise organized by Solomon Brothers? d) "This is risky. It could go completely out of business. But in insurance it’s very hard to get an edge, and they have an edge." “I’ve just invested in something that might go under. I could lose the entire investment next week.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 More FUN for this FIGHTER, DR. Byrne! http://www.4-traders.com/OVERSTOCK-COM-INC-10372/news/OVERSTOCK-COM-INC-Overstock-com-Announces-Court-Declines-to-Seal-Evidence-in-Goldman-Sachs-Merrill-L-14205152/ SALT LAKE CITY, March 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Overstock.com, (NASDAQ: OSTK) today announced that in its stock manipulation suit against Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch the court denied mostly all of defendants' motion to seal the evidentiary record on the summary judgment hearing. The ruling is significant because the evidence submitted to the court lays out in detail the means by which Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch used naked short selling, in concert with others, to manipulate downward Overstock.com's share price. I think that is a huge move in favor of Overstock.com, but me thinks legal costs are also not going to go down anytime soon as this thing goes to appeal and then trial now! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 how much they can get if they win the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 how much they can get if they win the case? Who knows! Could be a few million to hundreds of million. If you assume Zappos.com sold for $900M+ and they are saying their business was damaged by the manipulation and naked short selling of their business (whether it was or wasn't you can debate all you want), then that's a pretty substantial claim. If it goes to trial, I'm pretty sure Goldman and Merrill Lynch would want to settle...so they would probably offer a $20M settlement. Which wouldn't even cover Overstock's legal expenses. So more likely Overstock.com would not even entertain a settlement less than $40M plus legal costs...so around $65M or so. But you never know...they could end up with $500M or they could even end up with zero! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopinath Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Sanjeev, You know Patrick Byrne wont settle this for cheap sum..Its not really about getting the money & its about exposing them to the world. I think he even stated that in one of his interviews last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sanjeev, You know Patrick Byrne wont settle this for cheap sum..Its not really about getting the money & its about exposing them to the world. I think he even stated that one of his interviews last year. exposing Who to the world? fairfax has been losing their suits left and right. so far this "foray" into PB personal vendetta using company funds has been an utter disaster for shareholders, as has been his stewardship as CEO. Just get the debt and start a buyback. 50m buyback will make the shorts scramble to cover. I wonder Chou and FFH would be add to their losing stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I am noticing that Sam Antar and his brethren are adding "peace" and "good will" cheers to one another on Sammy's BLAH, but I must tell you all that, there will be NO PEACE in Sam's home relative to the burning embers I am SMELLING underneath the Overstock fire that is brewing. As the son of a once fire officer for NY's bravest, I can promise you all that I have learned a few things about this "SCIENCE" from boyhood on up! How can peace come to a man trapped inside of a Towering INFERNO where there are NO EXITS? I guess he can JUMP out of the WINDOWS wherever he resides with his brethren talking TRASH. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Not to hijack but does anyone have or remember the link where Patrick did a pretty good illustration on short selling? I know it was here (this board) that I saw it but cant for the life of me find it now. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stone19 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Is this it? January 20th, 2008 by Patrick Byrne When you or I travel to another country, the first thing we do when we land is change some US dollars into the local currency. Perhaps you change enough to get a cab to the hotel, go out and buy a meal, etc. For the duration of your stay you keep changing your dollars into the local currency to get around. Then when you are ready to leave, you take whatever you have left and you convert it back into dollars, or spend it, or give it away, and board the plane back to the United States . Yet imagine that there are some travelers to whom special privilege is granted. When they go to a foreign country, they are allowed to take a small machine that prints out the local currency. If they are in Paris , it prints out Euros. If they are in London , it spits out British Pounds. When in Mexico City , it prints pesos. And so on and so forth. On every trip, however, this special “currency machine” keeps track of how many Euros, pounds, or pesos it has spit out. When its owner goes to the airport to leave the country, a government official reads the machine’s printout and makes the traveler settle his account. For example, if the traveler visits Paris , then as he stands in the airport ready to depart, the official reads his machine and says, “Monsieur, you printed out €1,000 (one thousand euros) while you were here. At today’s exchange rate that is equal to $1,500 US.” The traveler hands over US $1,500 in cash, then boards his plane for the US . Why are such boxes allowed? Because the people to whom this privilege is granted are wealthy hedge fund managers and Wall Street brokers. It is more convenient for them to carry these currency machines, and print what is in effect “temporary” local currency, than to do what the rest of us do, changing currency every morning at our hotel’s front desk. Besides, they’re rich. Everyone knows they are good for it: in fact, when one of them arrives in a new country, before he gets to use his curency machine he has to prove that he is wealthy, so that no matter how much local currency he prints and spends, he’ll have the dollars to buy them all back at the end of his trip, at current exchange rates. That way, when he is ready to leave the country and at the airport his machine is read to find out how much of the temporary local currency he printed on his visit, and that number is converted into US dollars, he can simply reach into his valise and pull out the requisite cash, even if it is thousands, or millions, of US dollars. Imagine now that between the two Caribbean nations of St. Bart’s and St. Maarten’s there is a small island nation, St. Smallcap. It may be poor in comparison with the United States , but it has a working, even vibrant, economy. Its currency trades at parity with the US dollar (that is, one of the first converts to one of the other, and vice-versa). No one knows what the future holds for St. Smallcap. Perhaps it will stay as it is for generations. Perhaps it will develop into a prosperous island nation like Bermuda . Maybe it will become a destitute, impoverished nation like many other small island nations. Perhaps it will become an economic powerhouse, like Hong Kong or Singapore . There is no way to tell. One day, as if on cue, a dozen hedge fund managers and Wall Street bankers show up in St. Smallcap. No one thinks much of it as these fellows start driving around Smallcap with their special machines. They print off the local currency with great abandon, using that currency to buy drinks and dinners on the town, pay for taxis, and gamble at the casino. In time, they begin buying the island’s houses, cars, yachts, and cargo ships. They even buy Smallcap National Airline’s sole 727 jet. They buy anything that is not nailed down, paying for it all along with the local currency, which they print off their special currency machines as they need it. After a few weeks something funny begins to happen. There is so much extra currency floating around, it begins to affect the economy. As everyone realizes that there is a lot of extra currency sloshing around the island, prices for goods rise in anticipation that Smallcap’s currency will become less valuable. It may even happen that prices soar, as they did in Weimar Republic Germany after WWI, in a bout of hyper-inflation. Of course, as this happens, the rate at which Smallcap’s currency can be exchanged against other currencies, including the dollar, collapses. There is an even more insidious effect, however, that one can understand by thinking about the nature of prices. There are many ways to think about prices. Often we see them simply as obstacles preventing us from getting what we want (”Jim wants a new Mercedes but on his teacher’s salary he cannot pay the price.”) Another way to think of prices, however (a way many economists think of them), is to see prices as little bits of information passing back-and-forth around the economy, permitting millions of strangers to coordinate their economic activities. Prices for corn are going up and prices for wheat are dropping? That is a signal to farmers that they should cut back on wheat production and plant corn instead. Rents soar in a city while prices for office space stagnate? That is a signal that someone should convert some office space to apartments and condominiums. A city is washed out because of a hurricane, and prices for flashlights are soaring? That is a signal to surivivors within the city to share the scarce resource of flashlights, and a signal to outsiders to start trucking in flashlights for resale (i.e., “profiteering,” which to economists means, “responding quickly to price signals without regard for ethical concerns such as loyalty”). Like any other normal economy, in order to function St. Smallcap’s economy relies on prices to pass information around the economy. The hedge fund managers and their special currency machines, however, print out so much of their “temporary” currency that Smallcap’s economy becomes awash in it. Imagine listening to a radio playing across the room while someone plays white noise in speakers set up next to your ears: you would not be able to hear what was being said. Similarly, this flood of “temporary” currency washes out the signals that prices normally carry within St. Smallcap’s economy. No one knows whether to grow wheat or corn, and since seed prices are rising but no one knows what income can be generated from any crop, fewer farmers plant anything. Savings drop: it makes less and less sense to save, because what is the point of delaying consumption today in return for a future benefit that cannot be estimated? Since less money is being saved, banks have less capital to loan to businesses to expand, or even maintain, current production. As a result, manufacturing on the island also collapses. One can imagine a situation where, if Smallcap’s economy were small enough, and the Wall Street bankers and hedge funds swept down on Smallcap with enough currency-printing machines, that they could flood Smallcap with so much of its own currency that the price signals of the local economy would be mostly lost. The white noise of massive amounts of this “temporary” currency would disrupt real economic activity, like farming and manufacturing, until the economy of Smallcap cracked. Hyper-inflation, starvation, and mass unemployment might set in. People would begin trading anything they have in return for a ticket to flee the island. Throughout it all, the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers continue using their machines to print local currency with which they can buy, buy, buy. After six months, when nothing of value is left on the island that they do not already own, the bankers and hedge fund managers take everything they bought and load it onto their new cargo ships and yachts. They gather at the airport to board their new jet. A government official arrives and sets about to find out how much of the local currency they printed while visiting the island. The official reads the print-out from each of their machines, sums it up and exclaims, “100 million!” One hedge fund managers speaks for the rest: “Yes, but that is not 100 million US dollars. It is 100 million in your local currency. And while we have been visiting your country your local currency seems to have collapsed. That is hardly surprising, given that your farms are vacant and your factories are boarded up. It seems that on the international markets your currency is worth 1/10,000th of what it was worth when we arrived six months ago. Thus, in US currency, we owe you precisely… $10,000.” He flashes his thick wallet and counts out the sum. Laughing, his hedge fund colleagues and banker friends board their jet and take off, banking to watch their new cargo ships sail out of the harbor loaded with the wealth of the country, for which, in the end, they paid $10,000. Imagine also that surprisingly few reporters seem interested in these events, or notice the pattern of it happening to one small island nation after another. Those who do notice it take it for granted that small island nations are supposed to be the way they are: destitute and impoverished. Only rarely does a reporter challenge the bankers and fund managers on their actions, but the financiers respond in unison so perfect it appears rehearsed, “Are you kidding? Don’t you know what a dump that island is? The last time I saw St. Smallcap its farms were barren, its businesses were boarded up, and everyone was fleeing. I tell you, the place is just a disaster.” If you can understand the story above, then you can understand the crime that is occurring in our financial markets (the metaphor is a sound one, if I say so myself). The point of subsequent posts in this category will be to convert the story you just read into Wall Street lingo, one step at a time. You will see how the preceding story precisely expresses behavior that is occurring on Wall Street, routinely, today. In reality, of course, the “special machines” that bankers and hedge fund managers are using are not actual physical machines, and what they are destroying are not “small island nations,” and what they are printing is not “currency.” In reality, the “special machines” are loopholes in our legal system, what the bankers and hedge funds are destroying are small companies, and the “currency” they are printing off to do so are shares of stock in those small companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Overstock shares shorted is about 3.1M ending February 29th. You only have about 6.6M shares that are not tightly held. So about 15% of the total shares outstanding or about 40% of the actual float is being shorted. That means shorts are borrowing, begging and stealing shares to short right now! Who is lending...can only be a few people really...Fairfax, Chou, White Plains, a myriad of smaller investors? Don't know, but that is a very big short interest. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Hmm, that's an increase of approx. 185K shares heading into the March 2nd earnings report, but still a lagging indicator which must exclude the rush on March 1st, or the day before earnings when some reduction had to occur. However, the aftermath from the day of the call on March 2nd, up until today is reflective of more massive shorting from almost $7 pps on March 1st, to the approx. $5 low experienced yesterday. Today, Weiss, Antar's Evil "Seeking Alpha" Twin, provided a zero input analysis offering little value in citing 10K details, some good, some not so good, in order to keep the negative drum beat going towards the close. The useless comments by passerby's to thank these stooges while adding remarks like, I guess it's time to sell, should not be missed. If I had my dithers, I would like to see a "MEGAUPLOAD" moment where The Feds finally raid the offices of these miscreants and incarcerate them prior to setting HIGH BAILS to the whole lot of them! Either way, the BLAZE of FIRE heading for their family members should evoke shock and awe by those observing, if I was reading today's tape correctly. Of course, if "foul play" in the form of "fake shares" is still being applied, the joke might continue on longs. It seems to me, Byrne, etal, believe they have a handle on prior dubious trading in their pits, so I am very comfortable screaming FIRE! >:( IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Smazz, Welcome to "The Dark Side" of Dr. Byrne's "Looking Glass." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Smazz, Welcome to "The Dark Side" of Dr. Byrne's "Looking Glass." Yes, I think that is it. Thankyou ValueCarl. Stone, Thankyou. Yours is a good one also. I was thinking of the visual one. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 So, for the board's head, when I have thought about Strategic Fails to Deliver or FTD's over the years while being partially schooled by the good Dr. Byrne as well as some of his very smart advisers, peers and contacts who have worked diligently on this issue going back more than one decade, nothing becomes clearer than that Carnival Barker, Cramer, part of The Goldman Alumni yelling, "SELL, SELL, SELL" to the RUBES on cnbc. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Yes, and my "Cramer Visual" is tied to the fact that the "selling fury" that they like to create inclusive of panics surrounding stocks that they're gang banging, is all structured on their intimate knowledge of how they have "rigged" the back office systems at The DTCC which the B/D's including Goldman OWN! The travesty beyond the destruction of enterprises, economies and governments even, is the fact that the age old adage, “He Who Sells What Isn’t His’n, Must Buy It Back or Go To (Debtor’s) Prison,” said to have been made by a nineteenth century Wall Street trader, and stock operator, Daniel Drew, has been forever lost because of complicit regulators in a corrupt system taken over by Wall Street. :( "Occupy Wall Street?" Send flame throwers at the men controlling the DTCC along with their miscreant hedge funds working the SCAM being aided and abetted! >:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbaron Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Can you tell me ValueCarl, why on earth does it matter if there is a huge amount of failed to deliver on Overstock? It blocks them the equity market, but in my opinion, a great company does not need the equity market to strive. There are plenty of private companies that generate so much cash they don't need any other. So far, Overstock did not strive to say the least and it's not because of the shorts. Their operation was weak, first they invest way too much in IT, then they screw up their IT, then they destroy their name brand... I'm probably forgetting some other great mistakes here but you get the idea. The shorts had nothing to do with this! Don't get me wrong here, I admire the combat, but Mr. Byrne is not Robin Hood. Shareholder never gave him "carte blanche" to go and defend whatever illegal he is trying to defend for 16M$. That is just insane! This guy prides himself of being the servant of it's owner, but if my maid starts putting video cameras all over the house to catch the burglars that is not what I'm paying her for! BTW... At the current price tough it seems like a good risk/reward I start a position. Thanks to those short sellers, it's trading at liquidation prices now :) BeerBaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Beerbaron, are you saying the equity markets should be privatized and taken out of the hands of Wall Street? Or, is that the essence of what Wall Street along with the international banking cartels have been doing to the equity markets? You may be onto something I have often thought about as a result of "evolution," America at her peak, and the huge participation of public capital inflows into Wall Street's game historically, i.e. us rubes. I won't debate Dr. Byrne's actions with you, nor his perceived company failures because of what I am about to write. That being, investors around the globe owe a great deal of gratitude, thanks and praise to this American Patriot, one whom has been treated with utter disrespect by the Inner Eye comprising Wall Street which I speak about. Other than that, I am with you to a certain extent while saying, GUT the BASTARDS and start anew, but somehow they and their minion will still come out ahead owning and controlling the precious business resources which comprise the earth. Does this sound familiar, by the way? Is Overstock.com in a Death Spiral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 That means shorts are borrowing, begging and stealing shares to short right now! Who is lending...can only be a few people really...Fairfax, Chou, White Plains, a myriad of smaller investors? Don't know, but that is a very big short interest. Cheers! I cannot see how this could possibly be true. If shorts are really "begging" to borrow the shares, IB wouldn't have the HTB fee between 1-2%, which it was when I checked last (earlier in the week admittedly). Furthermore, when shorts are falling over themselves, it spills over into the options market, and places heavy premiums on put options. Currently (per yahoo finance) the Sep 2012 $5 puts sell for only about 70 cents, and they are pretty liquid (meaning that's a real price). An extremely heavily shorted stock would see a premium of at least a dollar for those puts, probably much more. Compare this to a stock that is actually heavily shorted, SHLD. The Sep 2012 $75 puts (stock trading at $80) last price was $21.23, or the equivalent of about $1.40 for OSTK. Everybody on here is overestimating just how heavily shorted Overstock is, and since generally high short interest stocks drastically underperform the market over the long term, I don't understand the giddy. But then again short sellers are just sellers, and when a stock becomes too hard to borrow that intrinsically shuts off a certain percentage of the people who are willing to place capital at risk because of their bearish opinion. When these negative opinions can't trade in the stock, it means the stock price gets artificially inflated and hence the underperformance of most high short interest stocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 You should check with IB how many shares are actually available. You should some of these IB inventory are from retails and thus small amount. You compare SHLD put value with OSTK?? SHLD just had a 200% run...and OSTK just had 50% run to downside... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now