As several people have pointed out, the shorts represent enormous automatic demand for this security. The only way their disruption can yield them windfall profits is if a huge number of us panic and sell them shares below where we bought in.
Just say no.
johninjapan is handing out the secret to easy riches right here on the board:
"In the meantime, a short can carry this dog forever, and use the cash in his account for long investments. Free money."
Nobody never told you there's no such thing as free money? Did you think telecom stocks were free money on the way up too?
If it's delisted, I don't have to do caca, you never need to cover a stock that no longer exists.
If it goes BK, likewise I don't have to cover.
If it goes down AT ALL, I have to cover but can do so at a profit.
Only if it goes up do I need to 'worry' about covering.
In the meantime, a short can carry this dog forever, and use the cash in his account for long investments. Free money.
This stock has gone about 80% toward zero in the past year. And I was here warning the perma-longs about the danger. That says it all.
Astral, you can spew your patronizing crap and pretend you know something about the market or whatever the hell else in life you claim to be an expert in. That doesn't change the fact that while some of us longs took our losses and figured out the game was over, you're still feeding quarters to a broken one-armed bandit expecting a payoff.
You know, you have to be one of the most entertaining posters. You usually make me laugh when you are verbally slapping down an ignorant poster. Keep it up, and thanks for the laughs.
P.S. - I especially like the analogies.
Sorry, pal. I'm in at $13. If taking your losses makes you feel filled with testosterone, go right ahead. But if you feel you need to propagandize for the shorts, then either think of some posts that make sense, or ... get used to being treated like you deserve.
Nice to see you using emotions and pleaing people not to sell. Your assumption that shorts will cover at this point is highly speculative and flawed (why buy at $11 when they can buy at $7 or lower). They will not cover until some definitive good news comes out of NLS and that certainly will not happen anytime soon.
Please, keep begging shorts to buy.....
I'd like to respond to several folks who are insisting that people should sell NLS below future prices (auz, many others). Some even suggest that shareholders should "sell at $11 and get back in at $8.
I'm glad to hear that you all agree with me that NLS will eventually recover. But don't you feel a bit ashamed at the advice you're giving? You're telling people to sell in a dip, while admitting that eventually the price will return to normal levels.
Emotions? You are confused auz. My point is only this: shorts have to cover *eventually*. Sooner or later. At some time in the future. Before they actually get any money. That's how it works. Anybody can say "I'm selling short at $20 and I won't cover until $7", but some panicky investor has to throw away his shares for $7 or it doesn't work.
Short selling is just a game & I don't feel obligated to take shorts seriously or pretend that they're investors.
Why should actual investors be shaken loose from our shares just because somebody decides that he wants to cover for $10? Or, worse, for $7? Why is this suddenly our problem as investors in NLS? So long as management controls costs, and reduces capital spending and acquisitions, this one is for buying, not selling.