"EFGO has clearly identified that there are posters here with destructive agendas. It's very obvious that the company is watching, but they are very very confident that their news will bring losses to the shorts at this point."
A serious question, because I am old and honestly - really - confused on this "short" business yourself and others, including TH, mention.
My obviously mistaken understanding is that a "short" position results in "borrowed" shares sold at a higher price - say, in EFGO'S case, .001, (which is where it was last Spring) then "repurchased" and returned to the lender if and when, say, the price drops - maybe even to .0001.
Now, such repurchasing is done after hours, as a rule (along with, coincidentally, company dilution), and there was certainly a lot of that happening in September - when the price finally, and maybe for good, hit .0001.
My question is, therefore, who'd be nutty enough not to be covering now?
I'll admit that, when EFGO announced their dulting previously, it crossed my mind to "short" EFGO (although, IMO, it's a costly, complicated, and risky play for a retail player in the pinks, and there are, IMO, easier ways to make money); and, had I done so, I would hardly have "losses".
But, short it now?
Explain this to me. TIA.
WILLY
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
