Member Info for HelloSanDiego

xviolet - "now is the time to start building inventory..."

Assuming EUA arrives in the next few months, do they have any supplies ready to go? At one point they were expecting to make 100k treatments per month from January last year. Has there been any news since then?

I thought it was obvious the market makers had an arrangement to sell millions of shares to Polygon provided they kept the price within its current range.

If they were instead having to generate volume for PIs (without the bulk discount it seems Polygon are getting) I'm sure the price would be significantly higher.

Kevin1977 - "This board is fantastic..."

Not really. Try raising any valid concerns or point out that success isn't guaranteed, and see what response you get from the majority on here.

To be fair, I used to do it to try to offer some balance to the discussion. But now I do it to wind up the zealots half the time.

Got it. Thanks.

smokeyjohnson108 - "the 0.1% reporting threshold is to the FCA, but isn't made public. 0.5% is the public threshold."

I see. But is there any reason to think that the 'unofficial' sites (i.e. not the FCA) have the correct data when it's below 0.5%?

If issuers aren't notifiying the FCA, it's doubtful they would bother to tell some other site. So isn't it more likely to be like those labels that LSE applies on the "Share Trades" tab, i.e. saying it's a Buy or a Sell by basing it on the algorithm's best guess?

"SSR minimum reporting threshold is now 0.1% for all issuers in the UK – 1 February 2021 update"

https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/notification-and-disclosure-net-short-positions

BJW, thanks.

I wasn't 100% certain that was correct because I only found it a few days ago and have never claimed to be an expert. I tried to get verification on here since then but that's what I was looking for. Thanks again.

Manifesto - "You have No credibilty I am not replying to any further posts"

These are all facts you can verify yourself. It's common sense.

Don't follow dodgy links.
Check where your data comes from.
Is it safe? Is it reliable? Up-to-date? Accurate?
etc

Manifesto

You and the official data source would be the first and second party. So any site that gets its data from the source and posts it elsewhere would be the third party.

So the point I was trying to make was that anyone can start a website and get 65 reviews on Trustpilot. That doesn't mean it's reliable or up-to-date.

Anyone who clicks an unfamiliar link on here is taking a stupid risk, tbh.

Manifesto,

No I asked you if you got your data from a third party site with outdated info, or from the official source. So you posted a link to a third party site and I said "Well that answers that question".

Manifesto

I'm pretty certain Citadel closed its short last month and if nobody else does, I'll post a link for where (I'm also pretty certain) short selling notifications are officially published.

That got me wondering: What are the chances Boris will still be PM when the results arrive?

I think it's looking pretty good for him tbh. I reckon he can hang on until March and I'm expecting the results this month.

Ndn71 - "...as SG019 shows, there is some fuzziness in the data"

SG019 doesn't show anything about the data that's been generated. It's to prove there's no 'fuzziness' in the questions themselves. If some of your data relies on responses to a questionnaire, you need to prove your questions are clear and unbiased.

Manifesto

See, here's the thing: Since we're posting on an investment board, the least you'd expect is that people would attempt to calculate whether that kind of effort to influence people on here could be economically feasible.

Manifesto - "I was using that example to prove the point that people get paid to post"

... on Instagram.

Nobody's disputing that. It's common knowledge. But it does nothing to support the often-repeated claim that people get paid to post on here, or that it could have any noticeable effect on the share price.

Manifesto - "Instagram influencers with under 10,000 followers can make, on average, $88.00 per post. Those with under 100,000 followers average $200.00 per post"

So almost 1p per follower? That's amazing. The posters on here must be on at least a few pence a day. Only the most popular ones though, obviously.

Wel that answers that question.

Manifesto - "The point I was making is that we "Know" Citadel are "Currently" reducing their position... But trackers
show their activity"

Which trackers? Does anyone here actually know where short selling notifications officially originate from, or are you just using out-of-date third-party sources?

Manifesto - "You are deluded if you think posters are not paid to post on various forums"

So is that a 'yes' then? You've made some effort to calculate it or found some other evidence before deciding the only possible explanation is a conspiracy?