Only if a share that is loaned is repurchased does any short have to cover.
It's possible that certain shares that could not be loaned for whatever reason are the repurchased shares.
38% float short, 62% not loaned. If you simply figure that these are like probabilities, then there's a 62% chance that if a share is repurchased, no short will have to cover.
I've been here for almost two years. If honor, in your definition, means lying, misleading, pumping and pretending to have connections with this company, you have been successful and I feel sorry for you.
Kewl has been honorable because in the beginning he put up with your never-ending attacks. You had met your match, both in intellect, reasoning and communication skills. (He writes his own material) You talked to him and then re-elected yourself chairman of this board. Now you're his buddy..(God I hope you're not vacationing together)
I have GREAT respect for Kewl and none for you sir. I feel that if the other kult members were honest, they would say the same thing. Unfortunately they think you are somehow going to do something for them or their investment in BLTI because of your mythological connections. That help hasn't materialized yet, and never will.
I don't know Kewl, but I respect him. He's a smart guy. You sir, pretend to be intelligent by asking dumb questions. Time for your milk and cookies or aspirin and raw eggs...
Read my previous post.
I am not sure there is a real limit to the number of shares that can be shorted if each buyer puts the shares in a margin account and someone wants to borrow them and sell them.
If I have this screwed up I would appreciate being corrected.
Back to my music
The question, more concisely is --
If the stock is maximally shorted (as Schwab indicates it is), does the buyback reduce float and reduce the number of shares that may be maximally shorted?
Further -- if so -- who has to cover?
The only person I outed was Frank "haveseenitall" Guerrier after he went on and on with diarrhea like BioLase being in cahoots with the Taliban and al Queda, Lebanon (as continues today), not owning their patents, Ioana Rizoiu, and volumes of other ridiculousness. This outing was met with great HUZZAH from the board (including lasercat who had been and continues to be grossly maligned). Needless to say, this was not appreciated by Frank, and apparently was not appreciated by notabanker, hedgefundbuddy, and especially not by erude_blti, for whatever lamebrain reason (who confessed to being short). The person behind these alias is as much a sell-side short as Frank, so why do you think the longs here give a flying F about your opinion of me? It's not a cult, it is long shareholders believing that they are fundamentally right about their decision to invest in BioLase.
Now if Pkewl were to flip out and behave like Frank with Taliban, al Queda and similar allegations, I still wouldn't "out" him as a matter of the honor I mentioned in my last post. Since he and I have comfortable dialogue, I would call him on his mobile phone and ask what's up, and with a rational explanation I might just take his side.
I just don't think it's gonna happen!
LOL at this loser!
I think what is confusing is your original question:
"Somebody check me here -- as the buyback progresses and 1.25 million shares are bought and retired, does that also mean that 1.25 million shorted shares must also be covered?"
The answer to the above is no, except in the special case where all 1.25 shares that were repurchased were also loaned, and no other shares could be borrowed to replace them.
This is different from what you say in the post I'm replying to, where you are asking if the number of shares one can legally short is reduced. The answer to that is yes, except in the special case where all shares repurchased could not have been loaned anyway.
So the answer is yes or no depending on what your question is :).
"you're risking having your name, address and phone number disclosed by disagreeing with the Klub President"
Incorrect. I am an honorable person and I respect honor, which pkewl has exhibited.
Honor is likely a concept foreign to you. Here's a start:
You will undoubtedly find living this definition to be a challenge. It's never too late to learn.
"Didn't someone from the annual meeting relate that Pignatelli or some other company official said that illegal shorting here, when confirmed, could be a monumental Wall street scandal?"
I didn't hear him say that, not to the large group anyway. He may have said that to a small group after the formal meeting. To the large group he did say that they "suspected" there could be naked shorting involved.
Didn't IJFrankel say something about shorting and not having to borrow if options contracts were also opened, perhaps from a different exchange?