3 ms·
1. The numbers are cited in almost every analysis of the situation this week. They've also been cited on WSB for months. Don't be lazy. 2. I didn't say any spe
by caseysoftware 6y ago
1. The numbers are cited in almost every analysis of the situation this week. They've also been cited on WSB for months. Don't be lazy.
2. I didn't say any specific firm. I only know the aggregate numbers and the specifics on a couple and they're not one of them.
- mike00632 6y ago1) Yes, I specifically pointed out that these numbers are being circulated everywhere. They are baseless and intentionally misleading. It might even amount to a crime. It matters that you can't vouch for these numbers despite repeating them yourself. 2) You intentionally used language that casts doubt on the only well-sourced statement, that Melvin got rid of their short position. If you're going to be so skeptical then I want to know why. If you think that CNBC is colluding with hedgefunds and intentionally publishing misinformation then I want to know why you are suggesting that.
- PartiallyTyped 6y agoHow about this? https://financhill.com/most-heavily-shorted-stocks-today https://financhill.com/most-heavily-shorted-stocks-today 250% of floating shares.
- mike00632 6y agoWow! That cite has a lot of numbers! They even explain what a short is! It's like one-stop shopping for misinfo on how to devastate your finances.
- PartiallyTyped 6y agoMore sources follow along then to shortsight and ortex for more numbers. https://isthesqueezesquoze.com/ https://isthesqueezesquoze.com/
- PartiallyTyped 6y agoMore numbers https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/are-these-the-best-heavily-shorted-stocks-to-buy-right-now-5-names-to-watch-2021-01-31 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/are-these-the-best-heavily-s... 121% short.