Your problem is that, with a 315 million share float, the company is drowning in $30 billion or $95 per share of debt. $85 leaves you and other bag holders (that is, the people whom the smart money sold shares to for $200+ per share) drowning underwater in debt just as today's $73 closing price does.
That screaming you hear is Ack-Jerk screaming from you know what. Not to mention screaming from a $25billion company drowning in $30 billion of debt. Those some research firms that got you to become a bag holder at $260 are the ones you're citing to? If you want spot-on research, you need to subscribe to Citron.
Short sellers who've made a fortune like to cover some of their sales by buying and thus realizing their profits.
It's called a stop loss. Some investors don't want to subject themselves to further losses.
Selling a company that has lost 70% of its value in a matter of weeks, earned only $67 million of net income in the last 12 months, and is drowning in $30 billion of debt is based on intelligence, not emotion. Indeed, in light of this data, buying (while hoping, praying and crossing fingers) is the emotional act.
Do you know if any of the debt is convertible, or whether any of it is collateralized by shares of the company? In any case, it seems that the debt-to-equity ratio could soar either because debt soared or because, as relevant here, equity plunged.
Your math is wrong: 14 million insider shares to be sold out of 42 million shares outstanding is 33% not 10%. And why the rush to modify the lock-up covenants? The dilution is the handiwork of the company (which is controlled by insiders and the board they elected) which also is dumping 7 million shares on the market in a secondary offering with an additional possible 3.1 million share overallotment.
It may be a case of realized profits versus unrealized losses; if the fund is marked to market, it may have sold MSFT to raise cash and increase its liquidity, perhaps in part to fund VRX margin requirements or margin calls.
The US Constitution only gives US companies the right to rip off American consumers. Canadian companies do not have that right under the US Constitution.
Please explain your rationale.
Rookie type investing, that is, going down with the ship; the old deer in the headlights, only selling when after the position's been pulverized rather than at the first sign of serious trouble or, better yet, at a pre-determined stop loss (or preserve profit).