So dumb question for ya ecomike
How many shorts are you seeing in your research?
Cuz last time I checked, our volume has been virtually squat for naked shorts to make a difference.
Otc short report isn't reporting more than 700k in shorts since Sept 28th.
And I'm assuming you've been trading otc for some time and if true than you'd know that all these "new" rules on making sure the shorts actually have to cover has been going on for a long time. Kinda like mms showing true ask and bid amounts.
Sure they've cleaned it up over the years, but it's still flawed.
But more importantly your blah blah blah about shorts covering for this stock holds no water. Our volume is squat and, for the most part, has been for months.
Again, since July 10th to now, most of our large volume days, which aren't many, have been heavy trades on the bid. Desperate shorts tend to drive the price up by buying shares on the ask if they have to cover.
But our old ceo, who just happened to cut ties on july 10th, really wouldn't give a damn to dump his shares on the bid, hence causing the downward trend. My theory, of course.
So in my opine it's not naked shorts or any sizeable shorts at all.
Mr. Carmichael might be able to chime in about that, but I doubt it. The old ceo failed at bringing this stock to the next level, and my hunch is he said I'm not your guy and is selling what he can for what he can.
So next time before you start yapping about loud mouths, you might want to get your facts straight. Because posting another round of sec or finra rules about shorting doesn't apply to this stock.
And if you really do your research, you'll see this is a rare revenue producing OTC that has a very weak share trading volume over the years.
Good news is they're not a pump and dump.
Of course, as always in my opine
Z
