Replies to post #22286 on Zicix Corp (ZICX)

[zomniac]

No acknowledgment, LOL
Why do you bother, Patch ?
They only want DD that's along the party lines.
Your posts don't have that "feel good" feeling, so coveted amongst the masses.
It's much more acceptable to make up how the market works, to allay the bagholders feeling of despair.
Sad

[Roivas]

Regardless of the short I have doubled my money. I do believe the more important issue here is the buyback, merger, acquisition and the company needs to put up or shut up on the issue. So... well you guys argue over a number that currently has no value to the stock (it could eventually) but right now if you are buying on the chance of a MOASS you are an idiot. Buy on the potential of the company. If you don't like the situation sell and double your money win-win.

To those of you who now may say the company has not followed through yada yada.. I agrue to some extent but I see potential here and I believe the company is not dumping and is making concerted efforts to increase shareholder value.

[underdog150]

Patchman, no one will believe anything you say about NSS, because
they believe you have gone to the *dark side*. I find it rather
funny that you have a problem getting your point across to posters that believed you before, but now throw you under the
bus because you changed your opinion. It seems the NSS crew
had a reawakening from the daily short report from Finra that they spin to suit their purpose.

-------------------------

Sterling, the biggest issue is the misrepresentation of the short volume data published by FINRA. It is not 'short volume' as you think and, many here are trying to make it be that to prove a point (not implying you).

I had posted what it meant on another board but those were removed. I did have a very long conversation with FINRA about this report and they made it very clear how this data can be misinterpreted.

First - seperate out completely the short volume trade report from evrything else. It is not what you think it is.

The way a trade is executed, Investor A is long 100,000 shares of XYZ and wants to sell at a limit. They place the order thru their broker to sell who then routs that order to a market maker who has no inventory in the stock. Over the course of the day, the market maker sells all or part of that order under multiple trades (lets say 10 trades of 10,000 ea. for talking purposes). Because the market maker does not want the liability of the shares he can't unload the market maker is allowed to sell first into a buyer into the 'media market' and then come back right afterwards and buy the same mount from you. The first leg of the trade, the MM selling to the buyer is the sale that is reported and because the market maker did not have custody of the shares he MUST mark it a short sale and will not report the mirror trade of him buying the shares from the originating seller. Even though the net result was a long seller selling out a position they held it is reported in this system as short volume. In my scenario it would happen 10 times for 100,000 shares.

A senior FINRA person explained this in great detail and explained that only one leg of a trade is reported to minimize duplication of trade volume.

To understand short voilume vs. short position you have to use the bi-Monthly short interest reports. You will only get 2-days of snapshot of what a real short in the stock is because the rest of the data does not have the resolution to differentiate.

Regarding FTD's, they are what is reported daily by the CNS system. It is not cumulative, it isaggregate. If you see 50% short volume every day for a month but you see no change in short interest and no change in FTD's, chances are that volume you are thinking is short sales is really just longs executing through market makers or other bona-fide market making that covered.

For the Record: I know nothing of this company at all so will not speak to the realities of shorts here. I am here to only clear up this confusion caused by some irresponsible people who are misleading what this means.

[stervc]

Patchman, with your thoughts...

Your thoughts are appreciated. I do not believe that you are here to mislead. By all means, I am not the "all knowing" for interpreting any data. I simply explained how I interpreted the data as it was explained to me.

You do see that the way how you explained these current thoughts you have posted actually could be thoughts to justify that a short/naked short position could be far greater than the numbers that has been reported. I say this because FINRA did tell me that MMs can short the same set of shares over and over again to fill an order. Heck, I’m just too tired to explain the scenario that would generate why I stated what I did above. Heck, my brain is a little fried right now on the issue.

Bottom line, the hope is that whether the short/naked short positions are big or small, it would be nice for them to just be covered and BEDA removed from the Reg SHO List. Then it would be good to have BEDA do what we all are hopeful in them doing to initiate/complete their buyback of 50% of their Float and close on their acquisitions. This is the substance that will be required for maintaining any kind of huge price increases into the pennies.

The lady from FINRA did tell me that although my thoughts made sense, it is still hard to know for sure just how large the "Failure to Delivers" in need of being covered could be since there is no way that the amount of shares covered could be tracked. She did agree that if I was aware of where most of the buying has been coming from, then that could make a difference for knowing how great or if the deficit of short positions is actually growing. In the case of BEDA, I think that the short position is over 2 billion shares, but even as a worst case scenario, considering if some covering has taken place greater than I had expected, I think it’s still somewhere over a billion shares shorted/naked shorted generally speaking.

Here with BEDA, we might just have to simply agree to disagree and if I am wrong, then please forgive me for being stuck on stupid. Believe me, I have had my moments of being hard-headed and dense. Or if you like, I can send you my phone number in a PM and we can discuss this over the phone to keep from clogging up the board. I mean no ill will towards you and I am only posting what I still believe.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that there is probably a short/naked short position needing to be covered, but you don’t agree with me in thinking that it is in the 2 billion shares area?

v/r
Sterling