"there is only one thing that matters here in relation to..."
That's not right, either, though.
I've not done a careful analysis of CLYW trading history back to the origin of trading, but, it doesn't appear that CLYW is one of those among the too many companies that have historically had major problems with ongoing manipulation including massive naked shorting in a volume that perhaps exceeds the OS, etc. It isn't apparently an issue that has ever had much in the way of concern tied to there being massive volumes of uncovered or naked shorts that would be considered significant in relation to a large % of the outstanding.
But, it clearly enough has had issues with shorts participating in the trading dynamic, with short traders "taking it down" when it was trading actively and moving higher... for no reason other than the chart looking trade-able by them. Charts and other data clearly show it was shorts, and not anything else, that capped the last move higher, reversing the direction in the trade when it was still only in the teens... when it appeared likely to head much higher, as the suit with T-Mobile had again begun making progress in moving forward toward trial. It likely would have headed much higher, too, if...
But, then, we also know why it imploded, again... That too obvious function of internal friction doesn't appear it has ever had anything to do with being driven by those short shares, rather than by those short something else...
But, the issues left here now obviously aren't about any prior dynamic in trading that DID exist... or about shorts having potential impact on the outcome in a trade, from here, in an issue that isn't trading ?
All that leaves is a significant probability that "someone" held a short position in CLYW... as events unfolded. Events bringing us to where we are now.. make it likely. Some bit of that is inevitable, perhaps, as a legacy of prior trading, under rules that didn't require much in the way of market makers taking care to ensure their books balanced properly. Rules changes have made "errors" of that sort less frequent, in the last two or three years, but they've still not made trading any more transparent, or required any additional transparency in or corrections of prior "errors".
What that leaves is a reasonable expectation there may still be a couple of held positions tied to legacy issues, or to someone more recently seeing the ugliness, correctly predicting the result, and expecting they'd never have a need to cover... which would be a reasonable view, given the ineptness apparent in CLYW management. Might even have been a couple positions taken just as CLYW was careening dangerously toward the edge of the cliff...
I still don't have any reason to expect that there would be a significant issue here, in relation to a % of the outstanding...
But, if YOU are the one holding 5,000, or 750,000 or 1.5 million uncovered shorts (or whatever)... ?
It wouldn't matter much TO YOU now, if you'd shorted at $0.20 or at $0.02...
If the patent survives through trial, and turns out to be worth something in the billions... with a potential that it could generate significant $$$ for years into the future ?
A short of 50,000 shares at $0.02... would be a $1,000 dollar trade... which could end up costing you $200,000 or more... ?
Longs liability is limited to 100%. Shorts isn't.
That fact wouldn't be likely to have any impact on the outcome of events... but, it could easily enough have a devastating impact on a few unlucky traders... simply because they'd failed to cover before trading was suspended.
So, it's NOT a big issue for CLYW, I think, but it sure would suck if YOU held a "minor" position like that... as a trade on a "no brainer" POS stock that clearly WAS imploding... when it turns out to have a lot of value associated with it... that you'd failed to recognize... ?
Odds are someone is short a few shares...
I'm glad it's not me.
.JPG)
AI
.JPG)
