InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 159
Posts 21637
Boards Moderated 4
Alias Born 02/07/2005

Re: LOYS post# 52923

Monday, 05/22/2017 7:30:03 PM

Monday, May 22, 2017 7:30:03 PM

Post# of 61040
I beg to differ. There is no NSS to speak of here.

The company needs an education on how trades are reported, and why the daily short volume has NOTHING to do with actual shorting. NOTHING. Period.

The current short interest is a whopping 10,000 shares.

http://www.otce.finra.org/ESI
As only the first leg of a trade is reported to FINRA, a trade is marked short if it is initiated by the MM that has no inventory. But, in nearly all trades, an immediate closing long trade is made. Presto, no short, and why the daily short volume numbers are meaningless.

The following should be required reading for all OTC traders:

https://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2016/when-shorts-hit-cannabis-stocks/

Some highlights:

The Daily Short Volume Report is even more popular than the threshold list among short selling conspiracy buffs. FINRA began publishing it at the behest of the SEC in early 2010. At the time, some objections were raised by industry professionals. Jess Haberman, who’d once worked at FINRA, noted that actual short sales are not reported. Rather, “proprietary and market maker sell orders and trades will be marked short when the firm is actually long, not taking into account pending sell orders. At the end of the day, the firm may well end up flat, meaning that they have no position in the instrument. Accordingly, the marking of sell orders as short by market makers, block positioners, and broker dealers effecting riskless principal transactions may not always accurately reflect what has transpired, and publishing data derived from these transactions may not increase market transparency and bolster investor confidence.”
Working together, FINRA and the SEC had created a monster. They had provided companies and their short-obsessed investors with a resource even more seductive than the threshold list. Instead of a mere handful of issues with threshold failures to deliver, the daily short volume offered supposed “short sale” numbers for virtually every stock traded on the national exchanges and over-the-counter. Every day, hundreds of message board posters submit posts about attacks on their stocks by dangerous shorts. Sometimes, they add each day’s numbers to arrive at totals rising as high as trillions of shares. Protests that short interest is a running balance fall on deaf ears.

Several promotional sites specialize in “documenting” short positions and predicting short squeezes. One of these is Buyins.net. The site is run by Tom Ronk, who lost his broker’s license many years ago. Ronk charges users of his site $99 a month for unlimited access to all reports. He charges issuers as well: “BUYINS.NET is occasionally compensated a $995 per month data fee by companies covered in our reports or a third party or affiliate of the company. The author of this report, Thomas Ronk and/or his affiliates, do at times have an ownership position in companies mentioned in our reports, and so do members of his family or affiliates and may profit in the event those shares rise in value.” For that price, the issuer will receive “squeeze trigger alerts” and “friction factor alerts” said to be based on proprietary algorithms. The issuers are free to share those alerts with their shareholders; in fact, Ronk will issue press releases about them.

As far as the float becoming locked, that's kind of hilarious, considering that this is a non reporting pink, the kind of stock that is best not held overnight, or at least not for any length of time.


Last, I'll add this:

People are starting to take notice of the ________ here

Fill in the blank:

Laughable disclosures in filings

Failed historical events/projections

Fraudulent statements about a book value and assets--which would make a PCAOB qualified accountant laugh.

Ludicrous company claims about a short position that proves they have no idea how trades are reported.

Claims of a $500m value for some gold claims that have no in ground value--at all.

Claims of a big share buyback, but no known means of funding said buyback.