Here is what is weird regarding WAMKQ's most recent semi-monthly short data:
(available at
www.geishababy.com/wamu/default.a...My understanding of the daily short data from FINRA was that the daily short volume represents the total shares that were shorted, but that volume is not reduced by any buys to cover (so it is not a net short). The semi-monthly report is what gives a true short position for the closing date.
For the period from 9/16 to 9/30 using the daily counts:
668,066 total volume (650,066 sourced from FINRA and 18,000 sourced from Yahoo for 9/30)
391,594 listed from FINRA as short
276,472 shares assumed to be traded normally (668,066 - 391,594)
So, let's assume all 276,472 normal shares traded were all buys to cover (to be 100% conservative for this scenario). That still leaves 115,122 net shares short (i.e. 391,594-276,472) for the period. However, the semi-monthly short report only showed an increase of 4,968.
****So, what happened to the other 110,154 (i.e. 115,122-4,968) shares listed as short (and possibly
Link:
messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/...;tof=5&frt=2more because we even assumed all others were buys to cover).****
Possibilities I can think of:
1. As Rover pointed out earlier, FINRA's total volume does not include trades that may sneak in after hours. So those after hours trades may have been more buys to cover which reduced the total shorts. This would have to be a decent volume if true (especially because we were ultra conservative and assumed all others were buys to cover for the scenario)
2. My understanding of the FINRA shorts is wrong. Perhaps the daily short volume includes buys to cover as well? Doesn't make sense to me, but neither do the short discrepancies above.
3. FINRA's data is incomplete/incorrect.
4. Powerful traders can get around proper reporting or have influence to adjust the report.
If it is a result of
#4 above, I wonder what the true short position is.