NOW THAT is a well-reasoned "position," even if I disagree with the all-important conclusion.
I keep coming back -- but I hope without seeming fixated -- to the impossibility that something as momentous (granted, just to the tens of millions of $ "bet" for or against ANAD) as "ANAD inside" (the iPhone) will not get "airplay."
That is, somebody like Cramer either "breaks the news" or picks it up from some trade journal or thing like this (presumably having used his connections to verify it.) Of course, it could be in tomorrow's Barron's or a hundred other places.... What it can't be, "logically," is knowledge confined to a water-cooler-type spot like this!!
And -- odds are that such "news" comes out while the market's closed. So we have a gap opening up and the notion of "re-entering at a lower price" is one of those cute ideas that could have made its backers a few percent, ... only they missed out on a gimme 15% by so doing.
(Of course, the alternative is that the news seeps in to the trade dynamic -- if it hasn't already.... Then ANAD outperforms the market for a period, seeming magically to act like a cork or whatever. How that would work [or IS working] is that longs and/or shorts, aware of something like the "mirror image" of the shelf that was overhanging for a few weeks, come in every time ANAD looks particularly weak. The longs add to positions thinking "Now the risk is mitigated by the price." The shorts think, "Covering at these levels makes more sense than HAVING to do so after a possible gap opening up tomm'w.")
The short to whom I'm responding is, I believe, 1-in-a-100 in his avoidance of margin. It's not for me to say whether the herd is sensible in this instance, but what is for sure is that most shorts stay glued to a quote vehicle. Moves of a certain magnitude (or much more subtle things) have them pulling the trigger (covering), because they are NOT stupid, and that's the only way they can play their game on any kind of sustained basis without incredible luck or inside info.