While several posters here have shown a number of reasons why shorting is not a good idea, none have actually gotten around to giving what I consider the most straight forward.
With the stock trading at $0.03, shorting 100,000 shares would bring into the account $3,000. To do this one would have to have a certain amount of parked money, and be ready to shed more right away with any uptick.
And, in the end, the best that one can expect, which is the stock going to zero, could take years and years to happen. Heck, look at the chart of this stock since inception. From $120.00 to $0.03 since the year 2000.
Let's assume that I could initiate the short sale of 100,000 shares of this stock by depositing $3,000 in an in investment account. Those $3K are parked and the best they could ever do is turn into six. Even if I think that the stock is going to zero in the long run, it is a poor investment since there are more than 20,000 common stocks that trade in the US markets, and I should be able to find hundreds that are likely to at least double in price within twelve months. So, regardless of what I know about BCCI or my opinion thereof, I would never tie-up my money shorting it. Instead, I would place my money on a long position that I think can provide me with a multi bagger within a relatively short term time span.
Taken this into consideration, I would never short BCCI because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of better bets out there. And that is the real reason why your argument about shorting is meaningless.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
