OSTK ceo
- Thread starter SWScapital
- Start date
You can't squeeze them because they electronic create shares the company has never issued. It's not shorts its Naked Shorts.
If these hedge funds are so brilliant, so necessary to make outsized returns, why do they have to break the law? Aren't they smart enough to succeed with their skills? If OSTK is going to zero, why not short it and wait? Why sell the CEO stock and not deliver? And don't give me that bullshit about fake email. Look how many days it's on the Threshold list. That means a minimum of 1/2 of 1% of the float is in an FTD.
Settle the trades, come what may. But settle the trades.
If these hedge funds are so brilliant, so necessary to make outsized returns, why do they have to break the law? Aren't they smart enough to succeed with their skills? If OSTK is going to zero, why not short it and wait? Why sell the CEO stock and not deliver? And don't give me that bullshit about fake email. Look how many days it's on the Threshold list. That means a minimum of 1/2 of 1% of the float is in an FTD.
Settle the trades, come what may. But settle the trades.
Regardless, your account is still short stock that would be going up in a squeeze.
Although this thread has been comical to many (including myself) I will add my two cents in terms of when one can expect to be bought in if you are short a stock.
Obviously the first thing to look at is the SHO list (follow link)
ftp://ftp.nasdaqtrader.com/symboldirectory/regsho/
for Dec 28:
ftp://ftp.nasdaqtrader.com/symboldirectory/regsho/nasdaqth20051228.txt
You can write a little program that can look at stats in terms of how long it has been on the list etc.
The second thing I look at is if the equity has options - how are they priced? Are they priced to indicate that the shares are hard to borrow? (i.e. puts higher/calls lower than fair value) If this is the case then one can say that there is at least some pressure on borrowing the stock. With many "hard to borrow" stocks one can see that option prices do in fact trade as if they are hard to borrow. In the case of OSTK, the synthetic stock (long calls/short puts) generally trades about .20 to .30 below fair value. Although this does indicate some pressure - I can say without hesitation that if buy-ins were running rampant that this synthetic stock would be trading much cheaper than it currently is.
Currently, you can buy the Jan $30 calls for $1.25 and sell the $30 puts for $2.55. You have received $1.30 to in affect buy the stock at $30 at January expiration. Thus you are buying the stock for $30.00-1.30 or $28.70. Also you are not paying the current stock offer of $28.85 for 23 days and this will also save you about .07 (CTC) resulting in buying the stock for about $28.63 via the options market instead of paying $28.85 in the marketplace.
As for the bulls - they can actually buy the stock synthetically via the options cheaper than buying the stock in the marketplace - this incentive for bulls (buying cheaper) creates an equilibrium in the options market so that traders can actually short the stock via the options without having to worry about being bought in (i.e buy deep puts). I would not worry about being bought in as long as this price level relative to the underlying remains stable.
or you can intiate a short in OSTK via the options market which will cost you only about .20 (relative to the stock price) but you would never have to worry about being bought in.
Obviously the first thing to look at is the SHO list (follow link)
ftp://ftp.nasdaqtrader.com/symboldirectory/regsho/
for Dec 28:
ftp://ftp.nasdaqtrader.com/symboldirectory/regsho/nasdaqth20051228.txt
You can write a little program that can look at stats in terms of how long it has been on the list etc.
The second thing I look at is if the equity has options - how are they priced? Are they priced to indicate that the shares are hard to borrow? (i.e. puts higher/calls lower than fair value) If this is the case then one can say that there is at least some pressure on borrowing the stock. With many "hard to borrow" stocks one can see that option prices do in fact trade as if they are hard to borrow. In the case of OSTK, the synthetic stock (long calls/short puts) generally trades about .20 to .30 below fair value. Although this does indicate some pressure - I can say without hesitation that if buy-ins were running rampant that this synthetic stock would be trading much cheaper than it currently is.
Currently, you can buy the Jan $30 calls for $1.25 and sell the $30 puts for $2.55. You have received $1.30 to in affect buy the stock at $30 at January expiration. Thus you are buying the stock for $30.00-1.30 or $28.70. Also you are not paying the current stock offer of $28.85 for 23 days and this will also save you about .07 (CTC) resulting in buying the stock for about $28.63 via the options market instead of paying $28.85 in the marketplace.
As for the bulls - they can actually buy the stock synthetically via the options cheaper than buying the stock in the marketplace - this incentive for bulls (buying cheaper) creates an equilibrium in the options market so that traders can actually short the stock via the options without having to worry about being bought in (i.e buy deep puts). I would not worry about being bought in as long as this price level relative to the underlying remains stable.
or you can intiate a short in OSTK via the options market which will cost you only about .20 (relative to the stock price) but you would never have to worry about being bought in.
do you even care about the legal issues? if this were you or I they would throw us under the jail....no?
my firm has a hissy fit over mistakes that are resolved immediately. they say the sec is always threatening to audit them and blah blah blah..... how can these illegal shorts go unpunished for so long?
i said it awhile back... these hedge funds act as if they know the outcome already.
Mark Cuban comments are classic about overstock.com.
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000233073446/
http://www.theregister.com/2005/12/29/overstock_stock_dip/
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000233073446/
http://www.theregister.com/2005/12/29/overstock_stock_dip/