No what this rather ridiculous PR is trying to paint is that there is a SHORT POSITION present that can be forced to cover. However it uses the WRONG data to support such a ridiculous theory. Short Volume doesnt specifically show anything with Short INTEREST, Naked Shorting, Abusive Naked Shorting. It is nothing but ownership marking requirements for SEC Rule 200. I really do not care who OWNS or had PHYSICAL POSSESSION of shares initially in a trade transaction. In fact what is of potential interest is in fact the following two report, Bi Monthly Short Interest and the Fails To Deliver data of Reg SHO.
Short Interest is so insignificant it doesn't need mentioning, therefore there isnt some short position to force to cover. this security certainly doesnt have a delivery issue either as there are no FINRA 4320 Flags popped on it for delivery issues either. So no potential Naked Short or Abusive Naked Short sales to cover either.
It is fluff and it is certainly bullshit and the company paid for it as disclosed in their disclaimer.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
