/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>22794299
yes. the time of 13 days is based on the threshold security list for naked shorters. days to cover is just a solid meme because it proves we'll be pumping for a week+ when it happens

>>22794279
>Or Im guessing they were hoping it would trigger a panic sell?
that's what I'm guessing.
I think it's a desperation play

>>22794275
ballsy. I wouldn't buy sooner than Nov 20

>>22794343
>if so, why haven't they started covering slowly starting today over time so they don't squeeze themselves? I think we're being too optimistic here.
they aren't covering. officially reported short interest went from 57.8M on Aug 31st to 66.4M (more than all the shares in existence let alone public float) on Sept 15th.
there's also not enough options volume to hedge all the shorts
>soostefan
>Comments1745 | + Follow
>If we consider that all outstanding calls were bought and puts sold by shorts (no matter the maturity and strike) you will see that the total amount of contract covers only a small part of total short interest. Most of the SI is not hedged with options.
>finance.yahoo.com/...
>On top of that, in reality a significant part of calls were bought by longs and longs also sell puts to capture option premium. (edited)

Plus I know for a fact some retards have sold naked calls because this guy named EricInPdx keeps bragging about his naked calls on the seeking alpha comments

>>22794279
see pic related it's in response to the revealed numbers that short interest is greater than the real number of shares outstanding