InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 5213
Posts 24095
Boards Moderated 7
Alias Born 09/20/2000

Re: Dredinvestments post# 2839

Saturday, 02/21/2009 10:14:12 AM

Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:14:12 AM

Post# of 84657
Dredinvestments...

Not necessarily for either way. If these shares are already accounted for out of the float, then ”technically” there is no damage done. If these shares are out of the restricted stash, then it means that 27 million out of those 45 million shares have already hit the float. That would mean that the remaining 18 million shares are left to be absorbed.

Also, I really didn't want to go there (or here) about this thought, but those could be shares that are allowed to be absorbed into the float to allow for a naked short position to be covered. The MMs (or guilty entity) would need to capture real shares to cover fictitious markers or position of shares that were allowed to be bought and electronically created in people’s brokerage accounts that never really existed in the first place from the ”actual” float.

Only food for thought as I really don't want people to think that RRLB is a naked short play. I think people should see RRLB for the things they have going on and not because it has been naked shorted. If the covering thought is as I had mentioned above, I don’t think that it was something that was intentionally allowed, but I do think that maybe they will let it run after such covering has taken place. Again, only food for thought.

v/r
Sterling