He told you to see at 87, but you were too stubborn to listen? Even if you didn't want to listen to him, why did you hold the bag when sales are down, revenue is dropping 10-15% a year? Earnings are shrinking?
He told you why you should sell, but instead you talked about HPQ and how that has gone up. Well, looks like Chanos was right about HPQ too hunh?
I don't see why someone would apologize to someone who short sold shares of their stock. That person artificially created an extra share and sold it, increasing supply with a steady demand that would cause the price to artificially go down. I'd rather give him a kick in the nuts. The fact that CAT hasn't collapsed in the face of this steady assault on the market indicates to me that there is a ridiculously strong floor at 82. I doubled my position between yesterday and today.
Not exactly sure how you imagine that an extra share is created. It was borrowed, just like when you borrow money to buy a car for instance. You didn't create new money, you borrowed someone else's savings with the legal obligation to pay it back. When you short a stock you borrow it from someone who owns it with the same legal obligation to give it back, with interest and all accumulated dividends. So your Econ 101 explanation of supply and demand forces pushing down prices is hogwash. The percentage of shares sold short is so small it would have a negligible effect on the daily supply anyway. The fun happens when the prices start to firm up and the shorties get caught in the squeeze. "Get me that stock back at any price because it will be even higher tomorrow." So does that create artificial demand? Trust me in every case the supply and demand are real, regardless of the source of the shares.