------------------
EDIT: I guess you were comparing two Fidelity filings, not the latest filing to the Nasdaq institutional SO page ( note to self - going forward no posting before morning coffee).
So to answer your question with a question, my violation of above note to self notwithstanding, should we assume that Fidelity converted the 1.25% Notes to shares because shares could have been voted, while Notes could not?
My thought was that the SCTY/TSLA merger somehow violated a "rule" that they may have had with regard to the 1.25% notes, so they cashed out (recall the discussion @brian45011 had way back when about the warrants being called and when announced).
This may have provided the extra "fire sale" shares that helped drive the SP down to the 180s. IIRC that was the hedge price of the warrants (around 184 or so, with holder's convertible price equivalent of 124-125 or so).
I would assume that if FMR converted the notes to shares to vote, then they should have more shares in their November filing.
Hence, I suspect this is why going into the fall of last year, the big shorts were short: likely they knew something about the rules of the warrant holders that we didn't (assuming the best, they may have read the rules better than us...).
Edit:
Note to self: need to look at Edgar more often...
Edit #2:
IIRC this is consistent with the data you had provided regarding shares to lend in the fall of last year. IIRC they were consistently in the low millions/high 100,000s in total number. Not like current piddly amounts. However my memory could be incorrect...
Last edited: