The problem with his 'recall squeeze theory' is there is no reason to recall other than for the institution to sell the same number of shares back to the shorts - so there would be no price increase.
Proto wants you to think the institutions are hoping to recoup their losses with a recall.
If he was right we'd have proof of that in the statistics of other companies that got booted and had shares short, but where are the stats from Proto to back up his fantasy claims? Nada
The thing is this: passive institutions DON'T CARE any one of their holdings goes up or not.
Again: passive institutions DON'T CARE if any one of their holdings goes up or not.
One last time: passive institutions DON'T CARE if any one of their holdings goes up or not.
All they are trying to do is match the index as closely as possible, and collect fees while they do so - passive funds make money on expense ratios, transaction fees, and interest on loaned shares, NOT on any kind of capital gains or shorting strategy.
.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
