You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@Priigoat* Percent of TSLA selling by shorts: 60.68%
Can someone explain to me what that percentage means? Let's assume that the total share volume traded for a day is 1 million, that would mean that 606'800 shares were sold by shorts and only 393'200 shares by people actually owning the stock? Correct?
This 19.32% only shows the total percentage short as of today. But how do new go from a given tradinig volume per day, how many shares of that volume were shorted and how many shares were sold by people owning the stock?
* Percent of TSLA selling by shorts: 60.68%
Can someone explain to me what that percentage means? Let's assume that the total share volume traded for a day is 1 million, that would mean that 606'800 shares were sold by shorts and only 393'200 shares by people actually owning the stock? Correct?
Was the 65% short trading on Tuesday the highest ever reported?
I have spoken with FINRA representative about this question. The answer is that 60.68% of sales were marked with the "short" qualifier on the ticker. Sometimes several sales are batched together, and if there's a single short sale in the bunch, the entire batch is marked as "short". Translated, this means that the actual amount of selling by shorts is something below the 60.68% (or 606,800 shares in your example). Just how far below is unknown. The value of this percentage, however, is that we can compare the percentage of selling by shorts with the percentage of selling by shorts at other times and see certain types of behavior. For example, when short percentage of selling is near or over 60%, we typically see deep mandatory morning dips and trading with steep transitions between peaks and valleys, indicating that shorts are seriously at work with manipulations that will either cap run-ups or exaggerate dips. OTOH, percentage of selling by shorts of 40% or less shows significantly lower obvious manipulation of the SP.
would it be correct to say that the shorting figure you have been using isn't as reliable a reference as we thought?
From your own research, would it be safe to say that on days where you see 60% shorting, it is entirely possible because of the mix, that the sum total of shorting could amount to significantly less - say 30%?
And is it also possible that on days with 40% shorting it is possible to actually be 35%? The figures are just used as examples
If both of those constitute true statements, then would it be correct to say that the shorting figure you have been using isn't as reliable a reference as we thought? It was already made clear earlier that the number you collect each day is not the real number, but it was
a useful reference. If it can't be considered either accurate or consistent, does it still serve a useful purpose?
Along the same lines of shorting, when most of us read a high percentage of shorts did the trading, we expect to see the short percentage way up, but that isn't always the case. Are these packages of trades something done outside of what the retail trade can access? Or is it simply a matter of churning where they sell high and cover low - if they can? It would be more satisfying to know that some bull was benefiting at the shorts expense because if shorts trade among themselves, there is some sort of control over the shares and they sort of hedge their losses.
The SEC won't do it, but personally I would love to see a short is required to hold a negative share for a minimum of 24 hours. That way it would limit the churning. Or make permanent the rules employed as a circuit breaker for all short trading.
It's really a guessing game to figure out what percentage of the selling by shorts is exaggerated counting by batching on the ticker. If FINRA is showing 60%, for example, I do think the actual selling by shorts is something considerably greater than 30% because when they shorts control 25%-30% of the float,they are (for the most part) short-term traders while Tesla longs are much more inclined to be buy and hold investors. Maybe the truth is closer to 45%-50% when FINRA is showing 60%. I think that range is more likely than 30% once you remove the batching issue.I realize the float excludes investors such as Elon who are buy-and-hold-forever types, but even outside this group I would say the longs considered part of float are trading much less than shorts. Perhaps more importantly, lathe majority of trading these days is high-speed trading, which suggests more of a 50/50 ratio between bots that bid long vs. bid short. Food for thought.
"Villains" is a bit harsh, isn't it? The SEC and DOJ did not trigger this self inflicted wound. Elon Musk's ill-advised (more like un-advised) tweet triggered it. The tweet caused a major stock move that sirectly harmed people I have no sympathy for (shorts), but their hue and howl that the tweet was pure manipulation is completely lawful and perhaps justified, and the SEC/DOJ's response was not villainous.
Edit: my mistake. You weren't throwing shade on the SEC/DOJ. Still maintain that these "consequences" are what happens when you shoot first and then aim.
Yep. Some unknown number of them are acting to undermine by any means necessary a company they find personally threatening. Most, I would say, are just looking for personal profit. The large manipulators are pulling the strings of both groups to maximize their own returns. Churn pays handsomely. I think (think!) the next quarterly returns may quiet them all down for a while....maybe even bring on the promised Great Short Burn - but this fight is by no means decided in Tesla's favor yet. This is why it's so important to not keep giving them drama, and ammunition.While I agree that most of the pain longs have felt recently was a self-inflicted wound caused by Elon's tweets, I also suggest that the shorts have been at work with a well-orchestrated campaign of FUD and manipulative trading which earns them the villain title. I use that term not so much to denote quantity of pain attributable to one side or the other but instead to refer to intent.
Yes.And up $9 at the moment. How can everyone be terrified of Musk yesterday and today "oh look China loves us". Are all these people squirrel brained?
View attachment 336444
The percentage of TSLA selling by shorts rose to 63.15%, even higher than yesterday.
The most likely scenario we will see is that with the steady climb of TSLA today and the likely large losses to the day-trading shorts today, they will be less likely to trade in such volume tomorrow. Consequently, lighter manipulations will make a continued rise of TSLA more likely. Expect to see percentage of selling by shorts come back down tomorrow, providing there's no super-FUD to encourage higher manipulative trading.
Conditions:
* Dow up 158 (0.61%)
* NASDAQ down 6 (0.08%)
* TSLA 299.02, up 14.06 (4.93%)
* TSLA volume 8.1M shares
* Oil 70.98, up 0.21 (0.30%)