Hi Larry, so 'boxed' is the correct term to use? Thanks. Guess your 'turnip challenged English' isn't so bad after all, eh?
And surely then you know exactly what point I was making: that it would be another useful tool for helping to manipulate the price down, for those situations where the strong bid managed to set itself up on a downtick, underneath another weaker bid. In those situations, the long shares would be the 'implement of choice' to knock down the strong bid once it was exposed.
But we digress with such speculation. My main point was that from what I've observed, there has been a lot less covering by the shorts than some have suggested. The size of the true 'unboxed' and unhedged (by CC's preferreds) short position, what I was calling the 'net' short position, is unknown to us. Perhaps it is as low as 500k shares, perhaps three times that? The fact is that the *reported* short interest is a potentially woefully incomplete measure in our situation, particularly because of the loophole in the S-3s that allows CC to avoid reporting changes in their beneficial ownership (which for them is artificially always exactly 4.9%, until they no longer own enough common, preferreds, or warrants to total that amount). |
