No, what he is saying is basic basic mathematics, allow me to explain.
If the TRUE float were say 10M, a MM has the "responsibility" to offer an environment for which a market can be made, hence a "market maker" = "liquidity".
So if the true float were 10M and 1 investor held all 10M shares, there would be no market would there? So the MM will issue shares (borrow) to sell to you who wants to purchase, looking to buy back at a later time (without the restrictions of naked shorting since they are a bona fide MM).
Now what this does is creates a "false" market for the security (don't get too scared there, it is a reality and makes sense - don't confuse with NAKED SHORTERS who are real worl investors like you and I), never-the-less a necessary evil for many pinks. The beauty is that MM's do this as their JOB and they make A LOT OF $$$$ doing it, BUT... if a company declares a dividend (like BIHC) and the MM has written 2M shares more than the float (or even 200M) it is the MM's responsibility to pay that divy to the share holder (well actually the BORROWERS, but let's not get into that level of complexity). For that reason they will begin to cover and make their $$ on the way up as the price drives higher, knowing that if they CAN'T cover, there will be buyers and profits with much higher margins.
MM's aren;t the EVIL step child, it's the naked shorters, per SEC and other regulations they are NOT ALLOWED to manipulate the price, only create a fair market. Now that doesn't mean they won't take advantage of weaklings.
The reason you don;t see HUGE price fluctuations on a divy announcement isn't the MM's it is the shorters and profiteers, in the end, like all things good - WE WILL PREVAIL.
-Turbo
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
