The SEC has a section that investors can submit questions to them (as well as a section that investors can submit complaints). This is the question that I (just now) submitted to the SEC:
"Why doesn't the SEC require disclosure of all short positions of an investor that are significant? The longs have to disclose. Why don't the shorts have to disclose? I had read once that the SEC was working on such a thing; however, (as far as I know)...nothing has been done (big wonder why...the rich hedge funds will fight the SEC tooth and nail). This "Short" reporting is especially important in the case of stocks that are so heavily shorted (like CLF). Longs have the right to know who we are dealing with. Shorts have been given that right...so why/what is the discrimination? You know as well as I that many of the "Shorts" are dark and devious sources with no good intent. I am hoping that your organization will provide me an answer that makes sense for the good of the country and not for just a few deviant rich folks."
It just took me a few minutes as you can tell by the time between my posts.
when you invest in a company you can look up the short interest so who cares who is shorting it? You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. If there were more long term investors instead of speculators they would run for the hills and go find another stock to molest.
It is up to CLF's management to handle the short position against the company. Other companies have done it and CLF should not be different. Just look at HP today, they have successfully held off the likes of Chanos and you still see Meg in front of the camera. And HP's financials are not as good as CLF's.
I would recommend taking your cause to CLF's management. There is several things they could do like buy back some of the CLV shares but not retire them. But if they would just get out in front of the media like Meg or Musk, and they can achieve the same results without spending a dime.
I talked to the guy at the SEC. He ignored my original question. Instead, he said that significant longs may affect ownership at some point in time; and, that shorts will not. No comments about it being a double standard. I told him I understood why longs have to report and that I agree with that; however, the issue that I had a problem with is that shorts do not have to report also. He was not allowed to comment on that. IMO, he has handlers.
I also told him how MS came out and moved their price point from 12 to 10 and asked him what was the purpose of that other than funny business? Of course, he did not have an answer for that. I am sure they know how crooked those big boys are but they are (imo) impotent to do anything about them.
I told him that I will need to get in contact with the politicians to see if they will do something about since the SEC is not doing anything about it. He said that the best way would be to submit a suggested rule change that anyone can do on the SEC site. Should I do both or just the suggested rule change for now?
So here is the part that bothers me, Lets say a stock is 50% short. You never see them shares reported as long shares. You would think that if 80% of a company is held reported shares Where the heck is the 50% that is short. Its still a share sold that needs to be reported as a long share.
The present "system", is exactly the way the big players and politicians--want it. There is no oversight.
Lobby money to both parties has allowed the present trading laws and dynamics. Politicians have all been well paid through their political war chest that will eventually be a personal trust. These were funded, developed and promoted by our Big Banks and Hedge Funds---to benefit the same. Laws that allow naked shorting through borrowing of share and black pools, HFT from algorithms that facilitate their short--all very precisely designed to help them unquietly and efficiently make billions---without ever the public being aware of their thievery. Talk about the Great Train Robbery---lol
There are no oversights here, the system has been designed to give them a "edge"---a big one. For all practical purposes, they can control the ticker for periods of time as they wish.
Update. I just noticed on my phone: Someone from the SEC was calling me and wanting to explain the rationale for requiring significant longs to report. I was away from the phone so i did not get a chance to talk to him; however, he left a name and number where I could reach him. He said he had some information he would like to pass on (I hope about possible developments in requiring significant shorts to report). I hope it is the answer I asked for: "I am hoping that your organization will provide me an answer that makes sense for the good of the country and not for just a few deviant rich folks."