InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 30
Posts 2500
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/28/2005

Re: holotawoopas post# 310712

Sunday, 09/03/2017 9:10:34 PM

Sunday, September 03, 2017 9:10:34 PM

Post# of 345965
Holotawoopas, you raised an excellent point. That is, you are seeking suggestions about why the shorting and naked shorting might have increased so much after the cutoff date for voters on record to vote for the BOD candidates at the October Annual Sharehokder Meeting.

A couple clarifying questions come to mind that put your point into better context.

First, do we know that the pre and post cutoff date saw a step change in short selling? If so, by how much?
Second, would SEC reporting of shares held >5% be impacted if shorting involved borrowing against those shares for establishing naked short settlement +3 days or other SEC compliance?
Third, whose BOD election position would be strengthened if a short affected, lower pps is being experienced while retail investors are submitting their proxy votes?
Fourth, how many extra ATM shares would need to be placed by PPHM management over the next few months if the BOD vote delays PPHM operational progress enough to require raising more funds to support operations?
Fifth, who would most benefit if PPHM is compelled to issue ATM shares at a depressed pps to support PPHM operations?


Regarding your point, I would also like to hear ideas that might explain the shift to more shorting, post the shareholder on record cutoff date.

Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CDMO News