The net increase in the short position for the 4th quarter was 644,500 shares. The net increase in institutional ownership in the 4th quarter was 3,175,012 shares. That means the institutional increase was 5 times the amount of the increase in the "official" short position. So where did that other $2.5 million shares bought by institutions come from?
Besides that almost 3.2 million share net increase in institutional holdings, many of us individuals added to our positions in the 4th quarter. So where did all that selling come from? There were some individual longs who capituated, we knew some of them on this MB as long time longs. But could their shares have numbered in the millions? Or is there really a significant naked position as some have postulated?
I feel for those longs who sold, because I think they gave up too soon. I have completed a revaluation of my STSI investment. This is a little early, as I would normally wait for the release of the 2012 Annual Report. But I do not forsee anything in that report that will change my thesis for STSI. I have decided that I will continue adding to my position as my finances permit. Further, I think it unlikely that there will be any revelation in the next 12 months that would change my committment. I will continue to monitor this investment for any changes that may impact my reasoning on STSI. But I can be patient because I know that Anatabloc works! And that word is spreading.
I think time is growing short for the shorts. As they say on Game of Thrones, "Winter is coming..."
Everything is going so well and the buying is so tremendous versus the shares short and the stock price is still tanking? Explain that? Listen and learn everyone. This is a losing ticket. Take your 5% gambling portfolio and go elsewhere. It's only going down from here. Has STSI talked about the pending lawsuits. Nope. Have they come out with a serious reply in the last 3 months? Nope. Have they mnetioned how much they paid for endorsers? Nope. Have they stated how much they're spending on infomercials? Nope. Have they mentioned how much they spend on Golf Channel commercials? Nope. I guess it's all free right? Of course this won't have an impact on their increasing losses. Right?
Again, wasting too many words on an irrelevant subject. Investors know that the SG&A figure captures all of the advertising and associated activities. The big question for investors (with regard to SG&A) is this: Is the Y-o-Y increase in SG&A less than or more than the Y-o-Y increase in Abloc revenue? That's what a CEO looks at; that's what investors question him on.
Pending lawsuits....LOL! pending???? that's rich you know before they are filed???? Serious reply??? TO what?? Nonsense like your post??? Sending on informercials???? Nope they don't do that!!! so there is no spending to state??? Commericals and paid endorsers???? Nope they have not revealse those costs, but they are cost everyone in busness has . The difference in STSI commericals they can be 30 seconds unlie the big drug companies whose commericals are 60 seconds because 1/2 of the commerical has to be devoted to serious side effects!!! You need to go back to basher school as you are totally ineffective!!!