- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,610
- Reactions
- 7,492
LOL.
So three percent of the outstanding being short is Manipulation?
You didn't actually read any part of that analysis did you ?
There is much to digest in it but one of the key points is that after short sellers have managed to drive the SP down on the open market they appear to re purchase/make good the short sales by buying the shares from related companies off market.
You didn't actually read any part of that analysis did you ?
There is much to digest in it but one of the key points is that after short sellers have managed to drive the SP down on the open market they appear to re purchase/make good the short sales by buying the shares from related companies off market.
There is much to digest in it but one of the key points is that after short sellers have managed to drive the SP down on the open market they appear to re purchase/make good the short sales by buying the shares from related companies off market.
One of the major reasons I trade technically.
I don't get involved in pages and pages of reports and rhetoric.
I don't have to work out what's fair and what's not.
Who's screwing who and why they're doing it.
If its trading in my direction then I'm on it.
If its not I'm off.
Who are the guys writing these reports, and why am I even listening to them? Just a gmail address to trust?
There is much to digest in it but one of the key points is that after short sellers have managed to drive the SP down on the open market they appear to re purchase/make good the short sales by buying the shares from related companies off market.
Having read the article I'm a little confused (your link in this thread doesn't work like it does in the LNC thread btw). Basically it accuses big fish of cartel pricing this asset. Doesn't that actually imply the share price of LNC never reflects some sort of underlying, fundamentally derived value? Otherwise how come the LNC board did not start buying up shares en masse when they claimed to the ASX that they were "significantly undervalued"? If the share price was 50% undervalued at one point, did the board really believe they could achieve better than a 50% return by not purchasing the share?
Basically, what I'm asking is "assuming you're correct on this, why was true value not arbitraged into by insiders?"
Secondly, this chart says plenty to me, not sure I can see obvious signs of manipulation...
View attachment 52085
Who are the guys writing these reports, and why am I even listening to them? Just a gmail address to trust?
To what end? Company A and company B are related parties, if B shorts a stock and after the price has fallen buys it off A, then B has made a profit and A has made a loss; the net gain for the group is 0. It's a pointless exercise. Only a fool would think that's a good business to be in.
Some good points all round.
Sinner LNC shouldn't be $5 at the moment. But it probably shouldn't be 1.70 either and the huge swings in the past couple of years were also unwarranted (IMO)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?