Wednesday, March 23, 2011

The Street Sweeper on Northern and Voyager: Part 2

The Street Sweeper has published Part II on Northern Oil and Voyager Oil.

Linked without comment.


Anonymous said...

I'm curious as to why streetsweeper would cover a third of their position with such a small gain?

* Important Disclosure: Prior to the publication of this article, TheStreetSweeper (through its members) has effected a “short sale” of 53,000 shares of the stock of NOG beginning on March, 17, 2011, at an average price of $28.7889 a share, with the intent of profiting from decreases in the price of the stock.

TheStreetSweeper covered 20,000 shares of its short position at $28.64 on March 22. It continues to hold a short position of 33,000 shares, however.

John Hempton said...

I am not privy to the Street Sweeper thinking on that. But my guess is that 53000 shares was a too big a position for them and that they could not keep carrying it...

Our position is smaller and we have covered none. (We also had the position on for a longer time... we put it on above 30.)

This is not a Rino International (cover at 2c story). Its an inflated business with real oil and real wells. We will phase our covering in - covering as it goes down.

I (honestly) do not have an end-value in mind. I think I know what is worth plus or minus about 100 percent! But how you trade one of these is - well - a trick of the traders...

Alex Sebastian said...

Well now Street Sweeper has closed out the rest of its position entirely @ $26.435. Seems pretty odd for them to cover so quickly. I mean they made in the range of 8% in a week - not much you can say to that - but if they truly believed their thesis you would have thought they would have held onto a winning position for longer than that.

Bruce said...

imo, thestreetsweeper is committing immoral & unethical deeds by conspiring with a short seller trader to load up just prior to releasing a hit piece. Firstly, their short seller knows the news and its precise release timing beforehand and secondly, they are a and are supposed to be preventing, not committing fraud.

I think they should be called out and prosecuted. Very hypocritical, imo.

General disclaimer

The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Hempton. You should assume Mr. Hempton and his affiliates have positions in the securities discussed in this blog, and such beneficial ownership can create a conflict of interest regarding the objectivity of this blog. Statements in the blog are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and other factors. Certain information in this blog concerning economic trends and performance is based on or derived from information provided by third-party sources. Mr. Hempton does not guarantee the accuracy of such information and has not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of such information or the assumptions on which such information is based. Such information may change after it is posted and Mr. Hempton is not obligated to, and may not, update it. The commentary in this blog in no way constitutes a solicitation of business, an offer of a security or a solicitation to purchase a security, or investment advice. In fact, it should not be relied upon in making investment decisions, ever. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author. In particular this blog is not directed for investment purposes at US Persons.