"The absolute short volume might also do matter, as well as the percentage" That was a conjecture of my former posts. For example, on April 7, the short volume was 85M, and some of them may have been covered that day and until now. Since the current PPS is pretty low compared to the PPS at which the MMs shorted that day, the MMs have a very good merit to cover them "With Respect To" the price.
However, "With Respect To" the volume, does the MMs have enough volume to cover? The entire trading volumes on past Thursday and Friday were 5.5M and 6.1 M, respectively, which are much low compared to that 85M. I am really curious about how much, for example, of that 85M has already been covered, and should be covered shortly. This question can be applied to all other large short volumes after April. 7.
To sum up, in order for a shorter to cover a short very well, two conditons should be meet.
1)the price is low; 2) there should be enough volume.
For the first, the MMs win; the price is pretty low.
For the second, however, there have seemed no volumes enough.
Therefore, the conclusion is that the MMs should raise the price in order to make enough volume.
This has been my humble argument and question, and I have asked this question to the experts on this board since last week, but I have not received satisfiable answer yet. Is there any theory on this kind of question? If the theory is not available on this board, OK, then let's learn from the real life: Let's see what the price and volume move this coming week and later.
