Yes, I do believe it is still a workable real-life strategy. The volatile behavior of the stocks as far as price goes is not fun, but not unexpected. I believe the price is a result of a concerted effort to hold it down and break the will of the investors.
I'm not sure what Monk's "predictive model" is, as that's the first time I've heard that term. The investment strategy is based on volume of shares owned, not price. If shareholders own more than what is publicly available, then the strategy is intact. The covering will only happen when it is in the financial interest of the market makers to allow it to happen. Until then, we sit and wait.
I said not to long ago that fundamentals don't mean anything. Reconsidering, I realize this is not entirely true. The only fundamental part that is of concern is that they stay in business and do not dilute. Other than that, I don't care what they sell or don't sell, do or don't do. Just don't go under.
We could debate forever whether it's short manipulation or it's a pump and dump, but it's pointless. The only answer we will have is at the end of the journey and until the companies go under or a short squeeze does occur, we just aren't there yet.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
