Replies to post #97916 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[loanranger]

"Found an interesting article, "NanoViricides Sees Significant Short Term Intesest (NNVC)", at WKRB News & Analysis web site"

In unnecessarily re-typing the headline you left a couple of important words out....and then you decided to add a word. As a result you've completely changed its meaning.
Here's the actual headline:
NanoViricides Sees Significant Growth in Short Interest (NNVC)

There's nothing in the article relating to any "short term" interest in the company.
Apparently the author, a Zach Kirkland, thinks that an increase of 12,000 shares in a 4,000,000 share short position is "Significant Growth". He's clearly mistaken...it would be a statistically insignificant increase of three tenths of a percentage point......but IT WAS A DECREASE. Mr. Kirkland needs help, too.

NanoViricides, Inc. NNVC
8/15/14 4,001,090
7/31/14 4,013,042 -11,952 -0.3%



"But I recognize that when shorts position incorrectly, they often create an upside spike when trying to cover (short squeeze). The article is dated 8/29/2014 (last Friday), and states that 9.8 percent of shares are sold short, with 9.7 days to cover."
Note that the article may be from 8/29, but the increase is measured from 7/29 to 8/15, the latest available short position.

The general point is spot on.....a credible positive news item could motivate those holding short positions to cover, exerting upward pressure on the price. However, NNVC's short position is well within the range of those of other developing pharma companies. In fact, the two public companies (TKMR and BCRX) mentioned in the 8/13 Ebola-related article reproduced here....
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105272863&txt2find=tekmira
.....both had 13+ "percent of shares (are) sold short", to use your description, as of 8/15, versus 9.8%.

By way of further comparison, TKMR and BCRX had share price increases of 63% and 14% (both historically operate at significant losses, btw) between 7/29 and 8/15 while NNVC was up 3.5% during the same period.
Of course there could be any number of reasons, other than a range of credibility in their Ebola news, for the market to have treated these three companies so differently and I've obviously drifted off the main topic, so let me get back to it:
NNVC's short position, in terms of its operations, maturity and industry, isn't notably different from those in similar circumstances. Credible positive news would tend to improve its price.