Re: ECU: Trading Update 8/31 (Con't), and "short" regulatory position.
in response to
by
posted on
Aug 31, 2011 04:22PM
Golden Minerals is a junior silver producer with a strong growth profile, listed on both the NYSE Amex and TSX.
As alluded to in the prior note, today is a month-end period for hedge funds. So, one last hit on the bell is natural for these shorts in order to maximize monthly revenue. As a result, numerous orders at 4pm closed ECU at the low of the day--C$.65. Tomorrow is a new month and only two days remain for ECU's independence.
Here is the close:
|
Regarding the regulatory requirements for short positions (official and naked), I wrote the IIROC and received the following response:
Dear Mr. XXXXXX,
Thank you for your email regarding ECU Silver Mining Inc. (“ECU”).
UMIR does not contain a provision which requires a short position to be closed out prior to a stock ceasing to trade. In the normal course, a short position would continue to be liable for the position. In the case of a reorganization, such as the one referenced in your email, the short position would normally be “charged” in accordance with the corporate action (i.e. would end up being short the equivalent post reorganization position). This is very much a clearing and settlement function and you may be able to find further information respecting the actual mechanics by contacting a representative of your Dealer.
Unless I'm mistaken, this legalese indicates that an official short position can carry over to the combined firm. Interestingly, I specifically inquired about both official and naked short positions. However, the IIROC did not differentiate between the two. Perhaps, any comment on the naked position would be an admission of guilt that the regulators weren't doing their job policing these criminals. Imagine that! I still suspect that the naked position dwarfs the official short position.
We'll see what lies ahead Thurs. and Fri.
Silverbull50