Who's terrified? The price isnt real. Why would anybody be afraid of a made up line on a graph when there's no such thing as price discovery?

What are your thoughts on cellar boxing? Where a company is targeted to be shorted to absolute shit (using legal -or otherwise [and hiding such activity within required reporting periods]- means) on any shaky premise that short sellers can twist a narrative out of before driving the stock into bankruptcy so they NEVER have to close their positions?

Biotechs are attractive targets for this kind of activity because their bread and butter is in the hard sciences (not you theranos et al) so it's difficult for investors who don't have a very focused intense education in the field to determine for themselves whether a company's technology has potential... they have to rely on the company's marketing or, their competitors attacks- both heavily biased at best, deceptive at worst. It's easy to influence people without a cellar biology background, and they're more likely to err towards caution when someone throws up the buyer beware flag; they can't tell if it's not justified.

What is there left to say? If you don't want your money contributing to a fraudulent system, if you want an honest return on your investment, then DRS all of your shares.

It's been said a million times.

By the way- only 44% of the float to go before the entire company is DRS'ed :)

... tick tock

Are you blaming anybody besides chasers for being caught chasing? That's like the number 2 rule of trading stocks- don't f***ing chase.

Your thesis runs counter to the entire reason a post split price over $40 is maintained.

If retail was taking profits, then this stock wouldn't be holding at $40. It would be sitting between $1-$5.

Has anyone else heard rumors of a ticker change to LIGDS?

Gearing up for a R/S?

I get that it's just for IRA but either it's held and controlled under your name by computershare or it's not. If that was never the case for IRAs I don't get what the point of offering that was.

Then what was the point in the first place?

How is that even possible? Once they are direct registered doesn't Apex have zero ownership or access or legal claim to them?

Not every company recruits the same way as your troll-farm ;)

Actually this doesn't appear to be true. I work near their labs and walk through their part of that building every once in a while. I always see people in the offices and moving between lab spaces- or one time having what appeared to be a weekly meeting in their conference room.

Who do you want "manipulating" the share price if *not* the"mob?"

Movement in the "market" quite literally is DEFINED BY the demand of the "mob."

And movement not created by their demand is quite literally the definition of market manipulation.

To say anything else is revisionist gaslighting

That's what I'm saying- the rule change made it so It's not JUST skull and bones and edgier market designation that prevent it from being accessed by all traders.

Well it may take a bit before other brokerages update their status.

There are new rules around otc stocks that basically only allow "expert" traders to buy stocks that don't meet reporting requirements.

Which part of reddit are you talking about? Or are you just talking about THE reddit itself?

I'll be selling for no less than $10,000,000.00/share, and direct registering up to 20% of my position with Computershare and holding at least half of those through the squeeze

This company will eventually settle at a fair valuation of $2500 or more per share- AFTER the squeeze

Citadel had a closed door meeting with CFTC to discuss hiding their swap execution facility.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pccf8s/citadel_and_friends_had_a_closed_door_meeting_at

Trading options only helps short hedge funds delay both the coming squeeze as well as the fair PPS for GME.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pc1g9g/my_theory_was_100_true_about_options_trading

If you "hold a share"at Robinhood, you do NOT own the share. What you own is an IOU for a share.

So when you buy or sell there, they buy it in their dark pool, and sell it on the market. And give/take whatever difference in cash you paid to you without you ever actually owning the share. They may do this without ever actually holding the share though.

If you transfer OUT of their dark pool however, and if they don't actually have a share to be represented by the IOU they sold you, they have to buy one at whatever price they can get in order to deliver it to whichever on the market broker you prices for transfer through- like Fidelity or TDA.

Actually...

https://i.redd.it/pm4dofjakqg71.jpg

This is what your dark pool brokers have to pay for GME shares when you transfer your position to a broker that doesn't use dark pools:

https://i.redd.it/pm4dofjakqg71.jpg

This stock is trading off-exchange for $3600+

I wonder how the new SEC rules might be affecting this security.

Shorts don't have the goal of covering at a low price after selling high; their goal is to never cover at all.

Prove it.
Prove they falsified data they gathered, and knew it was false.

Show me evidence of intent.

The only lies presented was the Hindenburg warping of PRED statements and context. Warped context and false claims they presented to the SEC- as evidenced by PRED having been re-listed and having caveat emptor removed.

PRED didn't lie; they have been fully exonerated.

COVID wrecked all ability to execute on any forward looking statements that dealt with the past ... What? 2 years?

Or would you like to blame them for COVID too?

One other point; your completely wrong about shorting having any place in an honest market.

First:
If. You. Do. Not. Own. Something. You. Have. ZERO. Right. To. Lend. Or. Sell. It.

Second:
The only factor that should determines a company's success or failure is their own ability or inability to keep their business running.
No one should be able to help themselves to a company or it's investors' funds simply because having that money will allow them to MAKE that company fail.
Imagine walking into a gas station with a torch and telling the owner you've taken out an insurance policy on his property simply because it looks flammable- and then lighting it up. There is no ethical difference here.

If you want to gamble on a company's failure, start a betting pool like an honest man.

1] net gains from the short position in your example is $15-$3= $12.
$12/$3= 4
4x100% = 400% gain.

2] If you don't believe in naked shorting you need to pay better attention to current events (look at what's happening with the meme stocks). Naked shorting can be hidden so long as the positions are covered before reporting deadlines- but that's just one way of getting around reporting requirements. Creating shells that purchase your naked shorts which resets your deadlines, and shorting your own shells... There have been plenty of ways to hide nefarious activity. Plenty of loopholes that are starting to be closed because of current events.

3] This company could certainly stand to do a bit more (or any amount of) looking before leaping. So many good ideas ruined by rushing into the wrong deals.

ALL victims are susceptible. Vulnerability doesn't justify a predator's actions nor should it elicit praise. They certainly don't need any, since they have pockets full of your money which is the only thing they wanted in the first place.

Shorting, whether naked or otherwise, should be illegal, and those who engage in such activity should be hated and despised for their actions.

Also I'm pretty sure you can only pick one:
"Attract investors with forward-looking statements"
OR
"Don't make yourself vulnerable with forward-looking statements"

So which is it?

It doesn't matter what forward-looking statement you make, if you are the target of a coordinated short attack, its meaning WILL be twisted and taken out of context and reported to the "shoot first ask questions later" department of the SEC...

Which is why I am COMPLETELY on board with PRED maintaining radio silence except when it is absolutely required by law.

Because they were as unaware of Hindenburg's short position as we were. Which actually is a fair criticism of the leadership's stewardship of our funds.

They should have been on guard for predatory activity and at least beat the shorts to the punch by taking measures to consolidate that cash into company coffers, and not left it vulnerable as equity.

EG What would have happened if they had countered the short selling with a massive forward split and multiplied short positions to the point of being unsustainable?

But really, how many other companies have fallen to short tactics in similar manner; having given their IPOs thinking that the only factor influencing the stock price would be their ability to attract the interest of long investors, without being aware that their investor funds can be literally sucked out of the company by those who are determined not just to profit off their failure, but actively taking steps to MAKE THEM fail.

Either you know your IPO is, in reality, a chum bucket with shark attractant and have taken steps to mitigate their presence, or you get eaten whole... or you end up like PRED having somehow barely survived the learning curve.

Low hanging fruit, as you use the term here, means nothing more than "cannot survive short attacks AND fund operations." Well never know what they could execute, because the shorts literally stole the money we have them to execute.

The Hindenburg group's predictions are nothing more than malicious self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes- companies make forward-looking statements- broadcasting your intentions is the ONLY WAY to attract new investors; and Hindenburg's entire predatory business model revolves around robbing any company that makes such statements (and it's investors) of the resources they need to follow through on them.

It's utterly deplorable.

The fiduciary duty is to release according to the SEC requirements. No sense of personal entitlement that will ever change that.

Public companies by definition meet all the SEC reporting requirements. There is no shareholder that is entitled to any more or any less than what is in those documents.

In this case there is no strategic advantage in putting in any more effort than the minimum required by the SEC. Anything else is just material for shorts to manipulate/obfuscate/misrepresent.

If you like what you see in the risk/reward ratio, then buy. If not, then don't.

Why would they sell at this kind of loss?

Hail hydrate, I guess.