Comment by kortilla

Comment by kortilla 3 days ago

You’re kinda all over the place with your “hints”. Naked shorting and failure to deliver shares have zero relationship to setting a bid price people are willing to buy at.

Shortsqueezes are cases of driving prices up because shares are hard to get and shorts need to cover. Again, not related to the best offer being too low.

Secrets are also dumb examples because that’s hidden information.

What we’re talking about here is the valuation with all of the public information available now. Nobody of any relevant market size seems to agree that it should be $9/share.

IG_Semmelweiss 2 days ago

I'm willing to grant some leeway on a shortsqueeze.

If one is willing to grant that the stock "price" for a liquid listing, is the price for a stock at any given time, then you could argue the markets are "wrong" insofar that the price quoted in the open market, is absolutely not the correct price - regardless of the excuse of a short squeeze.

Reply View 1 reply

kortilla 2 days ago

They are not the same because without available shares to short its very easy to recognize there is stuff overpriced in the market and the open market can’t do anything about it because the sellers are limited and they control the ask.
This is absolutely not true of a price that’s “too low”. Anyone, including you, can go hit those asking prices and start to load up. There is also capped downsize risk (as opposed to uncontrolled risk in a short).
This is all to say that it’s possible that company could be worth $9-10/share, but based on all of the information publicly available today, there are effectively tens of thousands of people each swinging billions in capital than are parking it in stuff providing 5% return rather than the 20000% you suggest is there.
So this tells me that you are just much more hopeful for the future of the company than the current financial projections and prospects support.

Reply View | 0 replies