Stock, what "name calling" are you referring to?
Trying to make me look foolish hasn't won you any points here. You attempted to make me look bad through sarcasm but, instead, you only succeeded in making yourself look bad. Don't blame me for pointing out the fact that you screwed-up with the wrong sentiment. It really back-fired on you and, as embarrassing as it was, it's no need for you to be even more harsh than you were previously. That is, unless you can't control yourself.
There is nothing condescending about my attitude. I am a past holder of 3 Series and if I can help some to understand how the markets function, I'm happy to do it. If you aren't interested in participating in the conversations, stay out of them.
Now, please tell us about this name calling. Show me where I called anyone names here. And, while you're at it, why not explain to us all why you have gone off on this tangent. These boards are for discussing a variety of topics related to stocks and the markets and that's exactly what I have done. You seem to be a little off-track. I'm sorry for embarrassing you about your "Strong Sell" sentiment but the truth is, you had to have clicked on it because it didn't get there by itself. You obviously were changing aliases so we all have to assume that you are one (or more) of those posting negative notes here. I think maybe you are the banksdead individual and when you changed back to stuckinthemud, you forgot to change your sentiment. There is no other likely possibility that I can see. You screwed-up and I noticed it. That would explain why you're so upset.
You became awfully defensive, awfully quickly and it's clear now as to why.
Name calling? Can you show us where? Or, was that just to change the subject hoping it would make everyone forget that were changing aliases?
My goodness, it's a low priced penny stock. Most all low priced stocks like this are a big gamble. You talk like this is investment grade situation.
Well, I don't feel bad I up 1000's & holding for a while longer.
"1) Being a profitable company doesn't guarantee the stock will go up. Many brokerages will not invest until a company has proven profitability over the course of many quarters."
It would with this bank, you sound like a novice. Most brokerages don't touch a low priced like this.
2) Not having to raise money doesn't have any connection whatsoever to the stock moving higher." Very positive as a lot of people are worried about DILUTION with the banks
3) "EVERY stock is a possible take-over target. It means nothing."
No it's isn't, that's just plain stupid. People follow Bove advice.
4) If it was a $30 stock but but can only easily go to $1.50, it's in trouble, big trouble. (I hope you never use this argument again because it is perhaps the weakest one that can be used. Just a friendly bit of advice, don't place any significance upon past performance. If I were to argue this point further with you, it would only make you feel bad. It's best to avoid this one.)
Because they were not that long ago a major player in the Michigan region. With the slightest uptick in the economy, CRBC should be able to capture a small piece 1.50 - 2.00 of that business.
I'm using an assumption that the short positions were built over weeks or months. The shorts borrowed shares and SOLD them. Fast forward and there's a catalyst that makes the share price move not only up but beyond its recent trading range. Many of those who hold a short position would cover (when one covers a short, they're buying not "If shorts cover at .95, that's all they're doing -selling at .95."). So now all of a sudden you have buying pressure, the shorts are all trying to BUY back the shares they have sold short--this is what is KNOWN as a short squeeze...again, the squeeze's effect may be short lived and that's why I don't get excited--improving fundamentals excite me--I'm not a trader.
Now some people like to single out the shorts as a "reason" why a company's share price is declining...more sellers than buyers should equal a share price decline; until buyers like the cheaper price. It's sort of like a tug of war.
In closing, when shorts initiate their position, they are SELLING shares and this MAY put downward pressure on a company's share price. (One can hold a short position for weeks, months or years). The converse is also true and is magnified when ALOT of short positions are closed by BUYING shares. Look at it from a long position: If I own stock in XYZ and they come out with terrible news, longs would start to dump their shares and what would happen to the share price?
Hope this helps.
investorseeker, I'm confused. You don't like those who short yet you believe that them having to cover will be "fuel for the fire"? How is this so?
Covering will not make a stock go up, plain and simple. We all know this. What you meant to say was that after they covered their short positions they would then turn around and establish long positions, thus, raising the pps, correct?
So you hate them and then you love them?
There is a lot of mis-conception here about short positions. Some of you are comparing apples to oranges.
I short all the time, I don't love or hate people I've never seen, don't know.
Shorts are just another factor in the equation. I just think CRBC can trade over 1.00.
The Market has broken the 1035 - 1050 key technicals & is in a upward trend. Bank stock will probably have their turn in the up trend.
SI creates additional buying pressure.
Even a novice knows that covering creates buying pressure that tends to make the price go up. There is a whole website devoted to this, shortsqueeze , com