Replies to post #21923 on Zicix Corp (ZICX)

[mikie3d]

sterling you're the man! this seals the deal on the short covering. thank you for the dd. i was in question if the day to day was compiling. well..it is. i still cannot find any leads on the second acuqistion. any help would be great. thank you again. BEDA LONG!!!!

[Chimaera1950]

Another "sticky-note" post from THE MAN!
Wonderful! Sa-weet! Promising!
But, Sterling, I keep wondering;
What is the actual
trigger, catalyst, kick-in-the-financial-butt, or whatever,
that is going to cause the covering to happen?
I know they are supposed to cover,
but will someone, or something ACTUALLY make the shorters cover?
I've heard before about some company's alleged short positions,
yet no cover ever happened.
Should we e-mail info to the authorities,
or has it automatically already been set in motion?
THANKS again for the great post!

[sunrisewizard]

Cudos for that post,this has to be one of the best thought out posts I have seen on investors hub.

[Borealis67]

Thanks for the post stervc......Awesome DD

[AvatarMCLN]

Good DD, however how can that be more than 2B shares shorted if the float is only 404M shares?

It is hard to believe that shorts are sitting on so much shares that have not been covered. The numbers have to be inclusive of short and covered positions.

This needs to be looked at more.

[chuckerfmfla]

STERVC. Thank you VERY MUCH for your information on post number 21923. I have copied it not only for BEDA but to keep it handy for other stocks.
Chucker

[patchman]

Not sure who had this conversation with FINRA’s Jocelyn Mellow but somewhere in the conversation you got a bad connection. But based on the report here, there is no affirmation at all that a multi-Billion NSS exists in this market.

Let’s start with Short Volume Reporting.

The daily short volume reporting has NOTHING to do with covering so trying to correlate the two is an exercise in futility. The data report is an accumulation of all reported trade tickets to the tape that were marked as short sales. Nothing more nothing less. Based on how a trade is reported to the tape, the originating seller could actually be a long shareholder selling through a market maker and not a short seller as is implied by the description. When a trade is executed through a market maker the trade has to be market based on custody at the time of execution. Because that market maker has not yet retained custody of your shares (purchased from you first before selling) the sale they execute to the media market (Tape) is reported as a short sale. In reality the Market Maker immediately goes in and buys the shares from you right after they sell into the market closing out the transaction but the second trade is not reported to the tape because it would be creating double volume report. It is because of this type of trade reporting that you see such high short volume numbers – BUT THEY ARE NOT SHORT TRADES BY INVESTMENT DEFINITION.

Relative to a short cover, a short cover could be 3 seconds later, 30 seconds later, 30 minutes later, 3-days later, 30 days later, etc… A short cover is not limited to T+3 as implied here.

Are the final numbers reported for the “short volume” the final end result numbers after any and all covering that could have taken place for that day had finally transpired?

This is a confusing and misleading lead in.

The short volume is specifically a reference to the tickets marked short and accumulated throughout the trade day. It comes from the sell side reporting of a trade. If a cover took place, the seller of the share covered would mark that trade long or short depending on where their particular position was in the trade – not the person covering. For example: Trade 1 is marked short 10,000 shares. 30 seconds later the seller of that short covers that trade with a buy of 10,000 shares. The total volume trade is now 20,000 shares and the short volume will be either 10,000 or 20,000 depending entirely on whether the second seller sold long or short into the cover. The short seller (Trade 1) will not report 20,000 shares of volume and have the long and short net out to zero.

For accuracy, buyers and sellers do not both report the same trade into the market statistics as it would bastardize volume numbers. Every trade could be counted 4 times or more if every buyer and every seller reported it along with every intermediate leg including those executed through a market maker on behalf of a buyer and a seller. Thus the short covering, as it is referred to in this dialogue, is unreported as the person who SOLD to the covering would report their trade long or short based on their activity regardless of a long purchase for cover or a long purchase for investment.

The way I read into the comments more it seems like there was confusion between short volume reporting (daily) and short interest reports (bi-Monthly) because covers have nothing to do with volume and volume reporting but everything to do with short interest as it relates to specific investment type.

Regulation SHO.

Again there is a complete misunderstanding here as to what the data means here.

First, daily numbers are not cumulative daily but aggregate daily numbers representing the total number of fails (new and old) on that given day. The raw data is submitted by the DTCC each day through the Continuous Net Settlement (CNS) System and it reports specifically how many fails are on the books at the end of that day in that market regardless of age of fail. This is clearly spelled out in the SEC release of information and in SHO.

Bottom Line: You can’t add Day 1 totals to Day 2 totals to Day 3 totals and say that this is the cumulative total of FTD’s in the market. On Day 3 the number of FTD’s is what is reported on day 3 and that is it.

Understanding what is and what is not covered by this data set is equally opaque. Let’s say there are 1 million FTD’s on Day 1 and 1.25 Million on Day 2. This does not mean that Day 2 accumulated .25 Million additional fails and that none of the Day 1 fails were covered. It simply means that the aggregate total is 1.25 Million. The mix could just as easily have been 500,000 of the 1 Million Day 1 FTD’s get covered and 750,000 new FTD’s were added.

Under SHO it is fails of a certain age that covering requirements are imposed. It is based on this part of the rule that the SEC now looks at FTD’s not just as an accumulated number but similarly by age. The SEC claims SHO a success when the aggregate total may be exactly the same but when the age of which an average FTD exists drops.

I can not say whether this was a miscommunication or what but what was presented is entirely inaccurate and can be substantiated very easily by reading how trade are reported and how SHO is reported.

[chart guy]

Great post, very informative!

I had one question regarding the post however. It was my understanding that companies listed on pink sheets (ie: non-reporting companies) cannot qualify as Regulation SHO "Threshold Securities" and as such are not subject to Regulation SHO's "locate" or "close-out" provisions.

In essence, that would mean that BEDA as a non-reporting issuer, cannot be considered a "threshold security" and as such its market makers can short an "unlimited" number of naked shares, and are NEVER required by any regulating body to cover these naked shares. In fact, the only thing that would force a cover would be if the market maker gets a margin call, or perhaps on instruction from a firm risk manager.

[TheFinalCD]

http://www.dailysho.com/ BABY!!!!!!!