4 ms·
They're too stubborn to take a loss and theres not even enough shares for them to all cover. Its also not really the case that none of them have covered. Peop
by trident5000 6y ago
They're too stubborn to take a loss and theres not even enough shares for them to all cover. Its also not really the case that none of them have covered. People close out and then new short sellers come in at the same time taking their place, thinking this is their time and surely it will go down, which keeps the short to available shares high.
- fock 6y agoBut couldn't they just settle with the original lenders without buying back the stock from the actual holders? Or is that forbidden? To me this would seem a logical decision for any lender (the business was not dead, so selling was a little bit too risky, but now taking a 100% profit and being done with that instead of having a stupidly inflated stock and 10% profits in the, seems reasonable)
- trident5000 6y agoThe only way you can settle is to buy back the stock. You borrowed the shares from someone who lent them to you and now you need to return them.
- fock 6y agoyes, but this someone probably would like to turn a profit as well and not be sitting on a pennystock?