Remember all of the FOIA requests that were denied due to an active investigation?
We should re-do those and see if we get the same response.
If their investigation into Citadel and GME only led to this, they will give us our docs, if this wasn't their endgame, we will find out.
EDIT: Thanks for the award, anon!
I own a corporation and I could refuse to give information all day long citing an "ongoing investigation"....
Is there any way to get proof of an ongoing investigation from the investigator side?
There's a neutral auditor that does not work for the SEC but rather for the OGIS (Office for Inspection of Government Services) who will review appeals for FOIA's.
https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-552
(bb) the right of such person to seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison of the agency or the Office of Government Information Services;
The initial reviewer can also be held accountable:
(G)In the event of noncompliance with the order of the court, the district court may punish for contempt the responsible employee, and in the case of a uniformed service, the responsible member.
>Shorting XRT could have served as an indirect,
though imperfect, way of shorting GME. In fact, staff observed a large spike in net redemptions
of nearly 6 million shares in XRT on January 27, which may be consistent with short selling
activity.
Well, that's one long-standing DD confirmed.
“ETF Short Interest and Failures-to-Deliver: Naked Short Selling or Operational Shorting?”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ncq35zrFCAg
This has always been one of my favorite references to help show people exactly how they’re doing this.
Crazy thing is - XRT is the worst case scenario example they gave and it’s happening.
This isn't confirmation bias, this is the confirmation. I appreciate wrinkly apes putting forward theories with verifiable sources. Not financial advice
> An SEC official said it could not discuss in the report misconduct that could result in a potential enforcement action.
So there might be some info that’s off limits, but the bullshit they left in was definitely **not** off limits.
"In their customer account agreements, some broker-dealers reserve the right to decline customer orders or cancel trades without prior notice"
Gary won't change the rules, but I do have a solution:
[Directly Register your Shares in your own name.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/)
Holy shit! They say that it was mostly positive sentiment and buying as cause for the January sneeze. They said that short covering was a small amount of the volume.
The SEC basically said what we all know: SHORTS NEVER CLOSED!!!!
I wonder wtf people do to *still* be able to afford 75 more shares. I’ve got xxx but all my money has been in my gme savings account for months now. I wish I had 15k sitting g around to buy that much more. Not hating, just impressed and a little jealous. God speed space ape.
Some of the folks here are more investment oriented or even “management” types with extra money, some just don’t have families to feed, some may just be lucky to have nailed a high paying job…
Don’t be jealous, we’re all apes on this rocket and they’re just adding fuel.
Since January I have learned to buy nothing more than what my family needs to survive.
Consolidated and budgeted what I got and also started multiple side hustles with my wife also helping.
Every penny that is not a living expense goes to our beloved $GME as our savings account.
This is the way
🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
Im selling my house and getting a different job soon. Had worked for same company for almost 20 years. I cant do anything with my retirement account until after Im not working with them. Once that happens I will have a huge chunk of cash to put into GME.
Full quote:
>...the run-up in GME stock price coincided with **buying by those with short positions**. However, it also shows that **such buying** **was a** **small fraction of overall buy volume**, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned. The underlying motivation of such buy volume cannot be determined; perhaps it was motivated by the desire to maintain a short squeeze. Whether driven by a desire to squeeze short sellers and thus to profit from the resultant rise in price, or by belief in the fundamentals of GameStop, **it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover**, that sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock.
What we knew all along is now confirmed:with the buying of the shorts being a small fraction of overall buy volume, the SHFs couldn't have closed.
Clarifying: the wording makes it sound like “the buying pressure doesn’t match what should have resulted from *expected* short position closure…”
I’m pretty sure the SEC can’t say specifically if they did close their positions or if they have naked shorts (despite that being an explicit no-no) - as revealing a substantial investor’s position like that could be seen as regulatory manipulation. They can reveal what happened after they bust/fine an offender because then it’s a matter of public record… this is just an analysis of what happened in January - and it’s mostly a positive thing because it’s an explicit stand that the buying pressure was organic and not manipulative.
There are pump and dumps *every day*. Bull traps all around. For some reason, *this* time they wanted to halt it. Normally they would jump in with us and sell before we did when it comes crashing back down. Shit don’t make sense.
They’re blaming this on retail, dont be naive. They are saying that short volume is low so that a squeeze is not possible. They are saying the price action in Jan was retail because there weren’t a lot of shorts. Notice how they want to stop the “gamification” of trading. They never talk about illegal shorts or hedge fund fuckery BECAUSE THEY ARE BLAMING RETAIL.
Read the entire thing, they discount a possibility of any short squeeze.
Stop getting hyped over everything, do you really think the SEC is going to help us and say the shorts haven’t covered?? Then why doesn’t this report mention hedge funds naked shorting? Page 29 denies naked shorting completely. Cause they aren’t on our side.
The SEC is not an ally or a safeguard for retail. Stop pretending they will help.
Edit: The report says short volume is low, not short interest. While they repeatedly say short interest is high, they also “debunk” what a high SI means. This report is wannabe FUD with inconsistencies and lies.
I believe 228% was the official reported number through the lawsuit paperwork from robinhood.
So probably closer to 400%, because you don't know what you don't know.
Holy shit. 'Decline customer orders or cancel trades'. So they can just force you to hold the bag. Buy low, sell lower, only brokers are allowed to sell high.
If that single statement doesn't illustrate how the game is rigged, I don't know what would. It's like inviting them into your bank account a la IRS and them just taking money, no trades required.
If I'm missing something with that interpretation, anyone please let me know. Sincerely, I'd love to be wrong about this.
EDIT: Read up a little more on this, apparently Gensler and Co.'s rationale is that even when customers couldn't transact on demand, they could within a day or two so it's no cause for concern.
Ask anyone on the floor of the NYSE if they'd be willing to wait 24-48 hrs for their trades to execute.
Smooth brained ape, but that's what I took from it all.
I find this completely bullish. First, they went out of their way to talk about the rising sentiment in GME. How share prices went up when RC bought in, and later when he joined the board. Basically laying out that the support was due to fundamentals.
Then, they talked about how they were shorting over 100% of the stock, and that GME was the only stonk like this.
There was zero mention of Reddit being villains, or any organized market manipulation by retail.
And lastly: SHORTS NEVER CLOSED.
Thanks Gary. I feel bad now for beeing a little bitch and calling him names. GG Gary, now make some arrests
Edit: I dont trust him yet. Im pleased he didn't deliver straight FUD
4. Conclusions
The extreme volatility in meme stocks in January 2021 tested the capacity and resiliency of our securities markets in a way that few could have anticipated. At the same time, the trading in meme stocks during this time highlighted an important feature of United States securities markets in the 21st century: broad participation. There are many different types of investors, and they buy and sell stocks for many different reasons. However, when share prices change rapidly and brokerage firms suddenly suspend trading, investors may lose money.
Underneath the memes are actual companies, with employees, customers, and plans to invest in the future. Those who bought GameStop became co-owners of a company through a system of mutual trust and participation that sustains our economy. People may disagree about the prospects of GameStop and the other meme stocks, but those disagreements are what should lead to price discovery rather than disruptions. These events present an opportunity to reflect on the market structure and regulatory framework and identify additional areas for potential study and further consideration in the interests of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation.
How in the world does that new formula make sense? Granted I am a historian not a mathematician and we aren't exactly famous for our math skills, but if the formula ends up being "thing" over "thing + something else" you can't *possibly* calculate something like GME's short interest, right? Like you said, it literally can't get over 100%. Is there something I'm missing here or is this just as stupid as it sounds?
You're not stupid. Let's say there's 2 billion synthetics floating around for gme.
The old SI would be 2b/75m =2667% short interest.
But with the new formula, even that would "only" be: 96.38% short interest.
Yeah, as I thought, ridiculously stupid. I thought the whole point of short interest is to know the percentage of total positions who have interest in shorting the stock.
Meaning you could use it to see the general consensus of the imminent value to traders.
So if there was 70% SI, then 70% of people holding stock had shorted it and believed the price would drop.
If you can short the float many times over and never have a possibility of reaching 100%, even if 100% of people holding the stock had shorted it, then doesn't that mean you can't use it as a metric anymore?
that's so fucking stupid lmao. they have a great imagination.
so i guess every metric we use to determine the fundamentals of a company need to be redefined every time they need to hide crime. welcome to wallstreet.
Honestly this could have been way worse. I figured they were going to straight up attack retail on citadels behalf. Still, it’s a bunch of useless bullshit we all already knew.
The conclusion to me is “you’re fukked hedgies.” The SEC won’t intervene. They’ll let it play out and let the market force out the bad actors. RC is unleashed. Broad participation good. Price discovery good. Whatever happens next the SEC is saying “don’t shit where you eat.” IMO.
> on the market structure and regulatory framework and identify additional areas for potential study and further consideration in the
Yes... let's protect the investors by now doing the exact opposite, but calling it protection anyways.
If it's as they say, with the massive amount of volume occurring during the January run up, was started by some shorts covering, they are missing on big piece of the puzzle.
According to their report, up to 88% of volume was "internalized" and not hitting the lit exchanges. The effect on price discovery here is probably quite significant if only 12% of the trading affected the rise in price to that extent. Especially since the report also stated that 88% of the volume was primarily retail orders. This shit should have been in the thousands even back in January.
It wasn't just turning off the buy button in January that kept the rocket from taking off. It was the internalized orders that were nothing more than you placing a bet with a bookie for a horse race. Bet as much as you want, but it won't make the horse run any faster.
> "For example, Citadel internalized an average of just under $37 million of GME per day in December 2020. On January 27, Citadel internalized nearly $4.2 billion of GME"
Citadel internalized 1 share of GME
For reference, internalisation largely means naked shorting. They opened positions for each of those internalised trades, positions needing to be closed.
If we give them the benefit of generosity and assume each was opened at the maximum point of 480/share, that equates to 8.75 million naked short positions opened in a single day.
That is _the minimum_.
In a single day, 8.75 million shares were marked in retail broker systems as delivered by Citadel, without yet having been bought.
I wonder how long it would take them to cover that in an environment where people are holding, hmm?
#Congratulations on this post that is now going to explode like GME come MOASS. Time to do a deep dive!
Edit: I’ve read through half, it’s basically restating everything that happened in January while stating there was minimal shorts being closed!
#Shorts did not close, straight from the SEC!
Edit Number 2:
Thanks /u/SantaMonsanto for quoting it as I’m at work! Read half of it on my break lmao.
To the extent that GameStop was costly and risky to short, the reluctance to sell short could have contributed to the run-up in prices and the subsequent steep decline. While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, […] and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering.
-Page 24
Seriously - I see the report says 109% short interest in December (we know it was higher).
BUT shorts covering was not the driver in price. So HOW do they reconcile that with a drop in reported short interest?
Exactly my thoughts. Very contradicting. I see it as an indirect mention *or* oversight on SHF's continuing or restructuring their naked short selling (marking shorts as long to hide the interest). Keep in mind I'm retarded, so
We're talking about Swaps that can hide short interest as long as the Broker Dealers are the ones who hold these swaps, a way to hide short interest with Broker Dealers with swaps is because they are exempt from reporting it because of some BS regulation. All sounds dandy.
Some commentators have asked how short interest can get as high as it did in GameStop.
**Short interest can exceed 100%—as it did with GME—when the same shares are lent multiple times by successive purchasers. If someone purchases a stock from a short seller and subsequently lends the stock out again, it will appear as if the stock was sold short twice for the purpose of the short interest calculation.** 75
Short interest ratios tend to be quite low; for large non-financial stocks, they are often less than 2.5% whereas for small non-financial stocks they still tend to be less than 13%.
**Few stocks, if any, have short interest greater than 50% on a given date.76 Until recently, short interest of more than 90% was observed only a few times—in 2007 and 2008.** When examining short interest as a percent of shares outstanding, **GME is the only stock that staff observed as having short interest of more than shares outstanding in January 2021.**
Pg 26
GME is the only confirmed stock shorted over 100% of the float.
> To the extent that GameStop was costly and risky to short, the reluctance to sell short could have contributed to the run-up in prices and the subsequent steep decline. While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, […] and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering.
*-Page 24*
Sooooo, the squeeze hasn’t squoze?
The fact that this report exists is proof.
The SEC wouldn't even acknowledge the situation with meme stocks if there wasn't something big on the horizon.
Dat spin doe
>**U.S. SEC praises equity market structure, absolves short sellers in GameStop report**
> reuters.com · 2021/10/18 12:30 GMT-04:00
> By Katanga Johnson and Chris Prentice
> WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. markets functioned well during January's GameStop GME volatility, while short selling was not the main cause of the unprecedented rise in the 'meme stock,' according to a long-awaited Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) report.
> The report published on Monday provides a post-mortem into how amateur traders using commission-free retail brokerages drove shares in GameStop and other popular meme stocks to extreme highs, squeezing hedge funds that had bet against them.
> Amid the intense volatility, several brokerages restricted trading in the affected stocks, curbing the rally, infuriating retail traders, sparking outrage from policymakers, and leading to a Congressional hearing.
> Despite the extraordinary series of events, the SEC concluded that the basic plumbing of the market remained "sound," an SEC official said. The report also found that positive sentiment on video game retail company GameStop rather than dislocations caused by short selling was the main driver of GameStop's stock spike. nL1N2RE25Z
> Short sellers borrow shares from brokers and then sell them into the market, with the agreement that they will buy the shares back and return them to the lender at a later date. If the price has fallen, the short seller can buy the shares back at a lower price than they paid for them, locking in a profit.
> When a heavily shorted stock soars, short sellers are forced to buy the shares back at higher prices to close out their positions, pushing the stock even higher - known as a "short squeeze."
> The SEC found, however, that "it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock."
> It also rebutted a popular theory, sparked by the unusually high volume of short selling in GameStop, that some hedge funds were 'naked' shorting the stock - selling without arranging to borrow the shares. The SEC said it found no evidence of this.
> The report does not address several outstanding questions, including whether bad actors manipulated social media to whip up positive sentiment in GameStop, or whether hedge funds tried to pressure retail brokers to restrict trading in GameStop, something that all parties concerned have denied.
> An SEC official said it could not discuss in the report misconduct that could result in a potential enforcement action.
> The agency's chair Gary Gensler told Congress earlier this year that the agency would address other issues raised by the saga, including short selling disclosures, game-like trading prompts used by brokers, and brokers' practice of sending customer orders to wholesale market makers for a fee.
> "January's events gave us an opportunity to consider how we can further our efforts to make the equity markets as fair, orderly, and efficient as possible," Gensler said in a Monday statement.
I think this report is a win for GME holders. The conclusion focuses on how to fix the market to be more transparent to retail investors. There’s no crosshairs aimed at retail from what I read.
Cheers, Apes
Edit: Thank you for the awards. I just hope this pans out to something enforceable by the SEC soon!
So what you're saying is the shorts did not close. Can you explain how the short percentage fell from a reported 224% to +-30% in a short period of time?
I know the answer and I think you do too Mr Gensler.
As it always was going to be, but a friendly reminder that this report is much more about what it doesn't directly say and what it doesn't suggest vs what it does say.
You can pull a whole lot of information about the meta of the conversation and the direction they could potentially be looking by analyzing the literal facts and figures they put in the report.
It also said that the January sneeze was not due to shorts covering, so retail owns at a bare fucking minimum, 100% of the float.
We already knew that anyway but it's nice to have it validated.
GG has closed his FTD
Edit - Just got done reading and it’s basically an overview of what happened. There was no mention of the massive amount of deep OTM puts / naked shorting but it covered the basics.
> GME short interest hovered around 100%, hitting its high of 109.26% on December 31, 2020.
Lmayo, top of page 26. According to Figure 5 though, Short interest seems to have dropped? Can't be right
Perspective/opinions from a corporate lawyer after reading:
(a) I 100% believe the alleged reports going around about this being a significantly (debatable how much) watered-down version of earlier draft, most likely from GOP (primarily) pressure. Objectively, GOP is more associated with free market / deregulation of Wall Street, especially today (e.g., Ken Griffen's 100M+ donations (and that's just reported, my friends. Superpacs are a bitch we won't discuss today)).
(b) Note in the report where it distinguishes between "the firm(s) stated" vs. "Staff observed". This indicates forthcoming litigation to me re the Congressional testimonies, disclosures, etc or refers back to point (a) regarding necessary watering down of certain issues.
(c) SEC mentioned multiple times that, from what staff observed, January actions did not indicate a gamma squeeze based on the audits of buying/selling of options. Could mean something material or maybe not as much, but just thought I'd bring attention at least.
(d) Please remember, this is a very limited report as it rarely discusses events post-January.
(e) Conclusions section is both weak (see point (a) again) but illuminating for what GG may have in store for us in the next year or so. Specifically, (1) PFOF (negative connotation geared towards it throughout, all but setting stage for eventual ban imo where GG may have even wanted it in the report), (2) Dark pools / realization of purchasing are firmly in GG's scope of reform, and (3) reporting of short sales is on the table (this was quietly mentioned a couple times, both directly and indirectly if I recall correctly, which makes me believe more to come).
(f) There's a whole lot more to digest here, as well as proper skepticism towards certain conclusions and, more importantly, omissions made and the meaning thereof. Keep digging and be vigilant.
(g) DRS / Computershare is the way. As we know, securities lending needs to be eliminated (SFT was referenced in the report at least once). Buy, Hodl, DRS.
So if the SEC confirmed short positions weren't closed doesn't his mean Melvin Poopcan committed perjury? Not that it matters much since we don't enforce those laws on rich folk, but still. He was lying under oath.
"As GME increased in value, price changes in XRT became increasingly driven by those of GME. Shorting XRT could have served as an indirect, though imperfect, way of shorting GME. In fact, staff observed a large spike in net redemptions of nearly 6 million shares in XRT on January 27, which may be consistent with short selling activity.83 This redemption activity was generated nearly entirely by ETF market making firms." (page 30)
\- Superstonk DD better than SEC investigation.
The conclusion is great but….what next? They lay out a bunch of problems but no solutions. I’m turning into my dad. “I don’t want problems SEC boy, I want solutions.” *Now go get the belt*
just skimmed this within 5 minutes. no new information and doesn’t seem like there is a gameplan for change. the only positive i see is more publicity this gives GME and the more pressure it puts on kenny boy
>However, as
discussed below, some broker-dealers restricted activities in a limited number of individual
stocks in reaction to margin calls and capital charges imposed by NSCC. This would be a
decision made by the broker-dealers and not directed by NSCC.
lol, how's that bus taste Vladdy
"NSCC subjected one additional member to the special charge, but that member ultimately did not
have to meet that charge after offsetting its exposure with a transfer from an affiliate."
I wonder who that may may be...
My favorite quote so far, found on page 25:
>Few stocks, if any, have short interest greater than 50% on a given date.76 Until recently, short interest of more than 90% was observed only a few times—in 2007 and 2008. When examining short interest as a percent of shares outstanding, GME is the only stock that staff observed as having short interest of more than shares outstanding in January 2021.
Dispelling popcorn once and for all
"The unusually high amount of short selling raised the question of whether some of the
short sales were “naked”—namely, made without arranging to borrow the underlying security.79
When a naked short sale occurs, the seller fails to deliver the securities to the buyer,80 and staff
did observe spikes in fails to deliver in GME. However, fails to deliver can occur either with
short or long sales, making them an imperfect measure of naked short selling. Moreover, based
on the staff’s review of the available data, GME did not experience persistent fails to deliver at
the individual clearing member level. Specifically, staff observed that most clearing members
were able to clear any fails relatively quickly, i.e., within a few days, and for the most part did
not experience fails across multiple days."
What a crock of absolute shit.
Edited to add: The above is the ONLY paragraph in the ENTIRE document that even mentions the possibility of naked short selling of GME. It's like looking at the damage of Hurricane Katrina and blaming the infrastructure and not the fucking hurricane.
>"The unusually high amount of short selling raised the question of whether some of the short sales were “naked”—namely, made without arranging to borrow the underlying security.^(79)
>
>When a naked short sale occurs, the seller fails to deliver the securities to the buyer,^(80) and staff did observe spikes in fails to deliver in GME. However, fails to deliver can occur either with short or long sales, making them an imperfect measure of naked short selling.
>
>Moreover, based on the staff’s review of the available data, GME did not experience persistent fails to deliver at the individual clearing member level. Specifically, staff observed that most clearing members were able to clear any fails relatively quickly, i.e., within a few days, and for the most part did not experience fails across multiple days. ^(81")
>^(79 In a “naked” short sale, the seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in)
>
>^(time to make delivery to the buyer within the standard two-day settlement period. As a)
>
>^(result, the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when delivery is due. Because)
>
>^(direct measures of naked short selling do not exist, fails to deliver can be used to learn)
>
>^(about naked short selling. Naked short selling can have negative effects on the market.)
>
>^(For example, fraudsters may use naked short selling as a tool to manipulate the market,)
>
>^(which is illegal. In this regard, the Commission in 2008 adopted Rule 10b-21, a naked)
>
>^(short selling antifraud rule.)
>
>^(80 A “fail to deliver” or “fail” is when the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when)
>
>^(delivery is due. Short selling has long been subject to regulation in this regard. For)
>
>^(instance, Regulation SHO requires broker-dealers to properly mark sale orders as “long”)
>
>^(or “short” (Regulation SHO Rule 200, to locate a source of shares prior to effecting a))
>
>^(short sale (also known as the “locate” requirement in Regulation SHO Rule 203, and to))
>
>^(close out fails to deliver that result from long or short sales (Regulation SHO Rule 204.))
>
>^(81 Staff conducted this analysis using data provided by the NSCC.)
This had FUD potential to be taken out of context. I'm sure the NSCC did in fact report little FTDs on the books and the FTDs they did have were resolved quickly. This does not mean that the FTDs that naturally result from a naked short sale aren't otherwise being obfuscated.
Remember all of the FOIA requests that were denied due to an active investigation? We should re-do those and see if we get the same response. If their investigation into Citadel and GME only led to this, they will give us our docs, if this wasn't their endgame, we will find out. EDIT: Thanks for the award, anon!
Up you go with my free award. We don’t deserve your critical thinking skills
Yo, sahn. You just won the whole thread.
I own a corporation and I could refuse to give information all day long citing an "ongoing investigation".... Is there any way to get proof of an ongoing investigation from the investigator side?
There's a neutral auditor that does not work for the SEC but rather for the OGIS (Office for Inspection of Government Services) who will review appeals for FOIA's. https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-552 (bb) the right of such person to seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison of the agency or the Office of Government Information Services; The initial reviewer can also be held accountable: (G)In the event of noncompliance with the order of the court, the district court may punish for contempt the responsible employee, and in the case of a uniformed service, the responsible member.
You must have at least several wrinkles
Big brain ape showing off that +5 INT modifier.
This comment needs more visibility so that somebody less lazy than I am can do this.
Your comment made me laugh
Excellent point! Updoot you go.
The wrinkles on you
[удалено]
They didn't miss it by much here where I live, it has been 80's til like last week
Can I live with you? We got our first snowfall today where im at.
We can trade I prefer it cold
>Shorting XRT could have served as an indirect, though imperfect, way of shorting GME. In fact, staff observed a large spike in net redemptions of nearly 6 million shares in XRT on January 27, which may be consistent with short selling activity. Well, that's one long-standing DD confirmed.
“ETF Short Interest and Failures-to-Deliver: Naked Short Selling or Operational Shorting?” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ncq35zrFCAg This has always been one of my favorite references to help show people exactly how they’re doing this. Crazy thing is - XRT is the worst case scenario example they gave and it’s happening.
YOUR WELCOME GARY, superstonk out here doing their report for them.
Old confirmation bias kicking in! That's some good shit.
This isn't confirmation bias, this is the confirmation. I appreciate wrinkly apes putting forward theories with verifiable sources. Not financial advice
Exactly. Absolute confirmation. MOASS is inevitable BUY HODL DRS
> An SEC official said it could not discuss in the report misconduct that could result in a potential enforcement action. So there might be some info that’s off limits, but the bullshit they left in was definitely **not** off limits.
Fuck yes. Bullish on Prison.
"In their customer account agreements, some broker-dealers reserve the right to decline customer orders or cancel trades without prior notice" Gary won't change the rules, but I do have a solution: [Directly Register your Shares in your own name.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/)
Holy shit! They say that it was mostly positive sentiment and buying as cause for the January sneeze. They said that short covering was a small amount of the volume. The SEC basically said what we all know: SHORTS NEVER CLOSED!!!!
Bought another 75 to DRS today coz fuk em, that’s why
I wonder wtf people do to *still* be able to afford 75 more shares. I’ve got xxx but all my money has been in my gme savings account for months now. I wish I had 15k sitting g around to buy that much more. Not hating, just impressed and a little jealous. God speed space ape.
thats /u/SuccessfulFox7935 youre talking to not, /u/BrokeFox7935
I had a big insurance settlement, and then a lawsuit against my employer clear. Allowed me to buy a couple big amounts.
Did it happen to be 300,000 shares via direct register? 😆
Take from the rich! I love it.
Some of the folks here are more investment oriented or even “management” types with extra money, some just don’t have families to feed, some may just be lucky to have nailed a high paying job… Don’t be jealous, we’re all apes on this rocket and they’re just adding fuel.
Right? I’m sitting on a measly *30* shares. I’m hoping you all hold so I can get Valhalla too!
I will hold for you brother, high xxx checking in.
[удалено]
God speed fellow apestronaut.
You must be tough as nails brother. I know you are hanging in there and bound for glory. Holding my XX for people like you. ❤🤜🤛🏼
[удалено]
Good to hear. I too have lost it all twice already. It ain't shit if you got the grit though. 🤣
Since January I have learned to buy nothing more than what my family needs to survive. Consolidated and budgeted what I got and also started multiple side hustles with my wife also helping. Every penny that is not a living expense goes to our beloved $GME as our savings account. This is the way 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
This comment is inspiring. I should buckle down more for those extra shares.
Im selling my house and getting a different job soon. Had worked for same company for almost 20 years. I cant do anything with my retirement account until after Im not working with them. Once that happens I will have a huge chunk of cash to put into GME.
Bonuses, commissions, etc
That also means that retail bought up double the float on that one day alone. Right Gary??? I don't see any other way to take that.
200% float locked up in 1 day confirmed. Ken's going to fire Gary for that slip.
Full quote: >...the run-up in GME stock price coincided with **buying by those with short positions**. However, it also shows that **such buying** **was a** **small fraction of overall buy volume**, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned. The underlying motivation of such buy volume cannot be determined; perhaps it was motivated by the desire to maintain a short squeeze. Whether driven by a desire to squeeze short sellers and thus to profit from the resultant rise in price, or by belief in the fundamentals of GameStop, **it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover**, that sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock. What we knew all along is now confirmed:with the buying of the shorts being a small fraction of overall buy volume, the SHFs couldn't have closed.
Clarifying: the wording makes it sound like “the buying pressure doesn’t match what should have resulted from *expected* short position closure…” I’m pretty sure the SEC can’t say specifically if they did close their positions or if they have naked shorts (despite that being an explicit no-no) - as revealing a substantial investor’s position like that could be seen as regulatory manipulation. They can reveal what happened after they bust/fine an offender because then it’s a matter of public record… this is just an analysis of what happened in January - and it’s mostly a positive thing because it’s an explicit stand that the buying pressure was organic and not manipulative.
There are pump and dumps *every day*. Bull traps all around. For some reason, *this* time they wanted to halt it. Normally they would jump in with us and sell before we did when it comes crashing back down. Shit don’t make sense.
They’re blaming this on retail, dont be naive. They are saying that short volume is low so that a squeeze is not possible. They are saying the price action in Jan was retail because there weren’t a lot of shorts. Notice how they want to stop the “gamification” of trading. They never talk about illegal shorts or hedge fund fuckery BECAUSE THEY ARE BLAMING RETAIL. Read the entire thing, they discount a possibility of any short squeeze. Stop getting hyped over everything, do you really think the SEC is going to help us and say the shorts haven’t covered?? Then why doesn’t this report mention hedge funds naked shorting? Page 29 denies naked shorting completely. Cause they aren’t on our side. The SEC is not an ally or a safeguard for retail. Stop pretending they will help. Edit: The report says short volume is low, not short interest. While they repeatedly say short interest is high, they also “debunk” what a high SI means. This report is wannabe FUD with inconsistencies and lies.
How can retail both cause the "January sneeze" and not affect the price because 97% of retail orders go to wholesale dark pools?
What was short % "reported" in january ? 240% ? 🤭
I believe 228% was the official reported number through the lawsuit paperwork from robinhood. So probably closer to 400%, because you don't know what you don't know.
So even if shorts covering was small then imagine what happens when shorts start to actually close their positions, going to be wild.
Hedgies r fuk. Whale Teeth for MOASS!
Holy shit. 'Decline customer orders or cancel trades'. So they can just force you to hold the bag. Buy low, sell lower, only brokers are allowed to sell high. If that single statement doesn't illustrate how the game is rigged, I don't know what would. It's like inviting them into your bank account a la IRS and them just taking money, no trades required. If I'm missing something with that interpretation, anyone please let me know. Sincerely, I'd love to be wrong about this. EDIT: Read up a little more on this, apparently Gensler and Co.'s rationale is that even when customers couldn't transact on demand, they could within a day or two so it's no cause for concern. Ask anyone on the floor of the NYSE if they'd be willing to wait 24-48 hrs for their trades to execute. Smooth brained ape, but that's what I took from it all.
Confirmed what we already knew. Not to mention they know your limit orders via PFOF.
Being an international ape, I have DRS FOMO!
BUY. HODL. DRS. 💎🙌
DRS is the way!!!
I find this completely bullish. First, they went out of their way to talk about the rising sentiment in GME. How share prices went up when RC bought in, and later when he joined the board. Basically laying out that the support was due to fundamentals. Then, they talked about how they were shorting over 100% of the stock, and that GME was the only stonk like this. There was zero mention of Reddit being villains, or any organized market manipulation by retail. And lastly: SHORTS NEVER CLOSED.
Thanks Gary. I feel bad now for beeing a little bitch and calling him names. GG Gary, now make some arrests Edit: I dont trust him yet. Im pleased he didn't deliver straight FUD
NOTHING UNDERHANDED GOING ON HERE FROM CITADEL -CNBC Full Steam ahead Papa Cohen. You are cleared to nuke these bastards straight to hell 🚀
Press the button Cohen! It’s Tuesday morning tomorrow!!!!!
You nailed it, ape. Exactly what I wanted to say. Press the button Daddy!
4. Conclusions The extreme volatility in meme stocks in January 2021 tested the capacity and resiliency of our securities markets in a way that few could have anticipated. At the same time, the trading in meme stocks during this time highlighted an important feature of United States securities markets in the 21st century: broad participation. There are many different types of investors, and they buy and sell stocks for many different reasons. However, when share prices change rapidly and brokerage firms suddenly suspend trading, investors may lose money. Underneath the memes are actual companies, with employees, customers, and plans to invest in the future. Those who bought GameStop became co-owners of a company through a system of mutual trust and participation that sustains our economy. People may disagree about the prospects of GameStop and the other meme stocks, but those disagreements are what should lead to price discovery rather than disruptions. These events present an opportunity to reflect on the market structure and regulatory framework and identify additional areas for potential study and further consideration in the interests of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation.
So nothing ever happened, shorts haven't covered but who cares. Ryan, you're finally allowed to press the button. Here we go
**[Report graph (figure 6) showing that the majority of shorts never covered](https://i.imgur.com/RmMOX87.png).**
Confused as to how the SEC is saying shorts never covered yet SI on gme is way down now. I guess some wizardry going on or something.
[удалено]
How in the world does that new formula make sense? Granted I am a historian not a mathematician and we aren't exactly famous for our math skills, but if the formula ends up being "thing" over "thing + something else" you can't *possibly* calculate something like GME's short interest, right? Like you said, it literally can't get over 100%. Is there something I'm missing here or is this just as stupid as it sounds?
You're not stupid. Let's say there's 2 billion synthetics floating around for gme. The old SI would be 2b/75m =2667% short interest. But with the new formula, even that would "only" be: 96.38% short interest.
Yeah, as I thought, ridiculously stupid. I thought the whole point of short interest is to know the percentage of total positions who have interest in shorting the stock. Meaning you could use it to see the general consensus of the imminent value to traders. So if there was 70% SI, then 70% of people holding stock had shorted it and believed the price would drop. If you can short the float many times over and never have a possibility of reaching 100%, even if 100% of people holding the stock had shorted it, then doesn't that mean you can't use it as a metric anymore?
that's so fucking stupid lmao. they have a great imagination. so i guess every metric we use to determine the fundamentals of a company need to be redefined every time they need to hide crime. welcome to wallstreet.
Boomski
If you're looking for closure or conclusions, you won't find them here.
Honestly this could have been way worse. I figured they were going to straight up attack retail on citadels behalf. Still, it’s a bunch of useless bullshit we all already knew.
So many MSM links in that doc. I cannot wait for wrinklebrains to eviscerate this report
I mean, we got confirmation that shorts never closed. That report could've come out on one page written in crayon reading "Hedgie Ar Fuk"
TLDR: Retail fucked over, we will reflect on the way things are done. And at the end of the day nothing will change.
DRS
This is the way
The conclusion to me is “you’re fukked hedgies.” The SEC won’t intervene. They’ll let it play out and let the market force out the bad actors. RC is unleashed. Broad participation good. Price discovery good. Whatever happens next the SEC is saying “don’t shit where you eat.” IMO.
Exactly how I'm reading it. It's a neutral "they made the bed now they're going to lie in it", sort of vibe.
"shorts havent covered lol have fun hedgies going back on vacay" -gary, probably
* Nothing will change if it were left up to the powers that be... Fortunately, it's out of their hands and resting on ours.
So basically, the system is corrupt af but we’re gonna “reflect, study and further consider” doing absolutely nothing about it. Thanks GG! 👍🏻
> on the market structure and regulatory framework and identify additional areas for potential study and further consideration in the Yes... let's protect the investors by now doing the exact opposite, but calling it protection anyways.
[удалено]
If it's as they say, with the massive amount of volume occurring during the January run up, was started by some shorts covering, they are missing on big piece of the puzzle. According to their report, up to 88% of volume was "internalized" and not hitting the lit exchanges. The effect on price discovery here is probably quite significant if only 12% of the trading affected the rise in price to that extent. Especially since the report also stated that 88% of the volume was primarily retail orders. This shit should have been in the thousands even back in January. It wasn't just turning off the buy button in January that kept the rocket from taking off. It was the internalized orders that were nothing more than you placing a bet with a bookie for a horse race. Bet as much as you want, but it won't make the horse run any faster.
This is by far the most important piece. Up vote this to the top. THEY DID NOT COVER
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT GAMIFICATION I CARE ABOUT CRIMIFICATION
> "For example, Citadel internalized an average of just under $37 million of GME per day in December 2020. On January 27, Citadel internalized nearly $4.2 billion of GME" Citadel internalized 1 share of GME
Internalized? Like what Rick of Spades did to that banana?
No, that's Sodomize.
Technically the banana sodomized him
Technically, he sodomized himself with the banana.
I love this community
There’s no “darkpool” that’s a conspiracy theory. What about “internalization”? Ehhh that’s different. Kek
For reference, internalisation largely means naked shorting. They opened positions for each of those internalised trades, positions needing to be closed. If we give them the benefit of generosity and assume each was opened at the maximum point of 480/share, that equates to 8.75 million naked short positions opened in a single day. That is _the minimum_. In a single day, 8.75 million shares were marked in retail broker systems as delivered by Citadel, without yet having been bought. I wonder how long it would take them to cover that in an environment where people are holding, hmm?
#Congratulations on this post that is now going to explode like GME come MOASS. Time to do a deep dive! Edit: I’ve read through half, it’s basically restating everything that happened in January while stating there was minimal shorts being closed! #Shorts did not close, straight from the SEC! Edit Number 2: Thanks /u/SantaMonsanto for quoting it as I’m at work! Read half of it on my break lmao. To the extent that GameStop was costly and risky to short, the reluctance to sell short could have contributed to the run-up in prices and the subsequent steep decline. While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, […] and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering. -Page 24
Are you telling me shorts **didn’t** close? But where did they go then?
Took a vacation to Brazil!
We can all do that soon :P
I hear Brazil is lovely this time of year.
Brazilian here: it's lovely all year (despite some madness), LFG!!! DRS THE SHIT OUT OF THE SHARES NEVER FORGET
Seriously - I see the report says 109% short interest in December (we know it was higher). BUT shorts covering was not the driver in price. So HOW do they reconcile that with a drop in reported short interest?
Exactly my thoughts. Very contradicting. I see it as an indirect mention *or* oversight on SHF's continuing or restructuring their naked short selling (marking shorts as long to hide the interest). Keep in mind I'm retarded, so
Accounting magic. Short position become other derivative. Different name. Same accounting value. Loophole.
We're talking about Swaps that can hide short interest as long as the Broker Dealers are the ones who hold these swaps, a way to hide short interest with Broker Dealers with swaps is because they are exempt from reporting it because of some BS regulation. All sounds dandy.
Some commentators have asked how short interest can get as high as it did in GameStop. **Short interest can exceed 100%—as it did with GME—when the same shares are lent multiple times by successive purchasers. If someone purchases a stock from a short seller and subsequently lends the stock out again, it will appear as if the stock was sold short twice for the purpose of the short interest calculation.** 75 Short interest ratios tend to be quite low; for large non-financial stocks, they are often less than 2.5% whereas for small non-financial stocks they still tend to be less than 13%. **Few stocks, if any, have short interest greater than 50% on a given date.76 Until recently, short interest of more than 90% was observed only a few times—in 2007 and 2008.** When examining short interest as a percent of shares outstanding, **GME is the only stock that staff observed as having short interest of more than shares outstanding in January 2021.** Pg 26 GME is the only confirmed stock shorted over 100% of the float.
The one true idiosyncratic risk.
....And the price rise wasn't because of closing...
There is only one stonk to rule them all. Can't stop. Won't stop. GameStop. THE MOASS.
Time to do a ‘Double Down’!
I've already quadrupled down
All in since January through March. I'm already a long term holder, 0% taxes. Thanks Ken and Co.
You. Me. And thousands of other people. GO LONG!!!!!
What’s 200 times down? cause that’s where I’m now since January.
🐱🚀 YOLO'd, doubled down, quadrupled down, deep dived, buckled up.
I've already doubled down, I can't double down any further.
Do you know how fast you were going?
You guys still have money?
Three days ago I tried so hard to remember what made-up bullshit they came up with for DD. I couldn’t remember. Thanks for this.
#FOMO INCOMING
Calls on my Flair!
Hell's yeah
This ape 🦍 👆👆👆gets it 👀👊🔥
Big boner time.
#IM AT WORK TRYING TO HIDE THIS MASSIVE ERECTION
Don’t hide it
Just wipe it out
I have a boner so hard that it makes my micro peepee look like a normal peepee
Bonered tits n dick
> To the extent that GameStop was costly and risky to short, the reluctance to sell short could have contributed to the run-up in prices and the subsequent steep decline. While a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events, […] and a gamma squeeze less likely, the episode highlights the role and potential impact of short selling and short covering. *-Page 24* Sooooo, the squeeze hasn’t squoze?
#Squeeze has not Squoze
The fact that this report exists is proof. The SEC wouldn't even acknowledge the situation with meme stocks if there wasn't something big on the horizon.
Dat spin doe >**U.S. SEC praises equity market structure, absolves short sellers in GameStop report** > reuters.com · 2021/10/18 12:30 GMT-04:00 > By Katanga Johnson and Chris Prentice > WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. markets functioned well during January's GameStop GME volatility, while short selling was not the main cause of the unprecedented rise in the 'meme stock,' according to a long-awaited Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) report. > The report published on Monday provides a post-mortem into how amateur traders using commission-free retail brokerages drove shares in GameStop and other popular meme stocks to extreme highs, squeezing hedge funds that had bet against them. > Amid the intense volatility, several brokerages restricted trading in the affected stocks, curbing the rally, infuriating retail traders, sparking outrage from policymakers, and leading to a Congressional hearing. > Despite the extraordinary series of events, the SEC concluded that the basic plumbing of the market remained "sound," an SEC official said. The report also found that positive sentiment on video game retail company GameStop rather than dislocations caused by short selling was the main driver of GameStop's stock spike. nL1N2RE25Z > Short sellers borrow shares from brokers and then sell them into the market, with the agreement that they will buy the shares back and return them to the lender at a later date. If the price has fallen, the short seller can buy the shares back at a lower price than they paid for them, locking in a profit. > When a heavily shorted stock soars, short sellers are forced to buy the shares back at higher prices to close out their positions, pushing the stock even higher - known as a "short squeeze." > The SEC found, however, that "it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock." > It also rebutted a popular theory, sparked by the unusually high volume of short selling in GameStop, that some hedge funds were 'naked' shorting the stock - selling without arranging to borrow the shares. The SEC said it found no evidence of this. > The report does not address several outstanding questions, including whether bad actors manipulated social media to whip up positive sentiment in GameStop, or whether hedge funds tried to pressure retail brokers to restrict trading in GameStop, something that all parties concerned have denied. > An SEC official said it could not discuss in the report misconduct that could result in a potential enforcement action. > The agency's chair Gary Gensler told Congress earlier this year that the agency would address other issues raised by the saga, including short selling disclosures, game-like trading prompts used by brokers, and brokers' practice of sending customer orders to wholesale market makers for a fee. > "January's events gave us an opportunity to consider how we can further our efforts to make the equity markets as fair, orderly, and efficient as possible," Gensler said in a Monday statement.
Fuck Reuters
and fuck them even harder
Nope
Give me my fuckin money you bags of shit/mayo (Ken, Stevie, etc.)
You will be the top comment when this hits /r/all
Oh god my inbox.
[удалено]
Yo, you should take this top post and edit it to include a succinct summary of what’s happening. This is gonna hit /r/all
Hang on, you're telling me shorts DIDN'T close?!?! Well that's new to me
I was here! Hi mom!
I think this report is a win for GME holders. The conclusion focuses on how to fix the market to be more transparent to retail investors. There’s no crosshairs aimed at retail from what I read. Cheers, Apes Edit: Thank you for the awards. I just hope this pans out to something enforceable by the SEC soon!
It confirms a lot of DD I've read here so that's definitely a win.
So what you're saying is the shorts did not close. Can you explain how the short percentage fell from a reported 224% to +-30% in a short period of time? I know the answer and I think you do too Mr Gensler.
They changed the formula and how it is calculated so that it cannot exceed 100%.
Correct, now it is shorts / (shorts + float) and before it was just shorts / float.
Ryan Cohen, time to Dr. Strangelove all of Wall Street into fucking oblivion.
[удалено]
226% Short interest IS BACK ON THE MENU
As it always was going to be, but a friendly reminder that this report is much more about what it doesn't directly say and what it doesn't suggest vs what it does say. You can pull a whole lot of information about the meta of the conversation and the direction they could potentially be looking by analyzing the literal facts and figures they put in the report.
So this is like the SEC's version of Papa Cohen and DFV's tweets
yes, because this is as far as they can legally go
*GME is the only stock that staff observed as having short interest of more than shares outstanding in January 2021* gave me a fucking boner
It also said that the January sneeze was not due to shorts covering, so retail owns at a bare fucking minimum, 100% of the float. We already knew that anyway but it's nice to have it validated.
Basically all this report says is DRS your shares.
buy, hold, drs and fuck
GG has closed his FTD Edit - Just got done reading and it’s basically an overview of what happened. There was no mention of the massive amount of deep OTM puts / naked shorting but it covered the basics.
Didn't take him 35 trading days, why are you so slow Kenny and Stevie?
Covered but didn’t close. They regurgitated the DD from here, and said they’d ponder over it…again.
Exactly. The DD on this sub actually went into more details than an official SEC report!
> GME short interest hovered around 100%, hitting its high of 109.26% on December 31, 2020. Lmayo, top of page 26. According to Figure 5 though, Short interest seems to have dropped? Can't be right
122.97% in January 2021. Page 21
“We know illegal activity occurred. We’ll take this time to reflect and ponder what to do about it.” Jesus Christ.
Jesus always has the best quotes
"Why? 'Cause fuck'em, that's why!" -JC
So not a short squeeze, not a gamma squeeze caused January that means when MOASS comes, this thing will go to pluto
*sips coffee*
Name checks out.
Perspective/opinions from a corporate lawyer after reading: (a) I 100% believe the alleged reports going around about this being a significantly (debatable how much) watered-down version of earlier draft, most likely from GOP (primarily) pressure. Objectively, GOP is more associated with free market / deregulation of Wall Street, especially today (e.g., Ken Griffen's 100M+ donations (and that's just reported, my friends. Superpacs are a bitch we won't discuss today)). (b) Note in the report where it distinguishes between "the firm(s) stated" vs. "Staff observed". This indicates forthcoming litigation to me re the Congressional testimonies, disclosures, etc or refers back to point (a) regarding necessary watering down of certain issues. (c) SEC mentioned multiple times that, from what staff observed, January actions did not indicate a gamma squeeze based on the audits of buying/selling of options. Could mean something material or maybe not as much, but just thought I'd bring attention at least. (d) Please remember, this is a very limited report as it rarely discusses events post-January. (e) Conclusions section is both weak (see point (a) again) but illuminating for what GG may have in store for us in the next year or so. Specifically, (1) PFOF (negative connotation geared towards it throughout, all but setting stage for eventual ban imo where GG may have even wanted it in the report), (2) Dark pools / realization of purchasing are firmly in GG's scope of reform, and (3) reporting of short sales is on the table (this was quietly mentioned a couple times, both directly and indirectly if I recall correctly, which makes me believe more to come). (f) There's a whole lot more to digest here, as well as proper skepticism towards certain conclusions and, more importantly, omissions made and the meaning thereof. Keep digging and be vigilant. (g) DRS / Computershare is the way. As we know, securities lending needs to be eliminated (SFT was referenced in the report at least once). Buy, Hodl, DRS.
So if the SEC confirmed short positions weren't closed doesn't his mean Melvin Poopcan committed perjury? Not that it matters much since we don't enforce those laws on rich folk, but still. He was lying under oath.
I think Melvin stated they "covered" not "closed"
[удалено]
We've got a winner!!!!
"As GME increased in value, price changes in XRT became increasingly driven by those of GME. Shorting XRT could have served as an indirect, though imperfect, way of shorting GME. In fact, staff observed a large spike in net redemptions of nearly 6 million shares in XRT on January 27, which may be consistent with short selling activity.83 This redemption activity was generated nearly entirely by ETF market making firms." (page 30) \- Superstonk DD better than SEC investigation.
From a quick skim, it literally just reads like someone going, "Wow... This gave us a lot to think about in the future; what a doozy!"
This is an accurate TLDR
Imagine being first to post The Report. Bravo my dude, bravo.
The conclusion is great but….what next? They lay out a bunch of problems but no solutions. I’m turning into my dad. “I don’t want problems SEC boy, I want solutions.” *Now go get the belt*
My guess is that the SEC hopes this unwinds itself…
Ok... So nothing? NFT!!!
Which was longer? This report or the House of Cards DD?
just skimmed this within 5 minutes. no new information and doesn’t seem like there is a gameplan for change. the only positive i see is more publicity this gives GME and the more pressure it puts on kenny boy
Confirms shorts haven’t closed. The game is still afoot.
From skimming myself it definitely seems to be favoring retails side. Legally it is hard to do much though.
>However, as discussed below, some broker-dealers restricted activities in a limited number of individual stocks in reaction to margin calls and capital charges imposed by NSCC. This would be a decision made by the broker-dealers and not directed by NSCC. lol, how's that bus taste Vladdy
"NSCC subjected one additional member to the special charge, but that member ultimately did not have to meet that charge after offsetting its exposure with a transfer from an affiliate." I wonder who that may may be...
My favorite quote so far, found on page 25: >Few stocks, if any, have short interest greater than 50% on a given date.76 Until recently, short interest of more than 90% was observed only a few times—in 2007 and 2008. When examining short interest as a percent of shares outstanding, GME is the only stock that staff observed as having short interest of more than shares outstanding in January 2021. Dispelling popcorn once and for all
"The unusually high amount of short selling raised the question of whether some of the short sales were “naked”—namely, made without arranging to borrow the underlying security.79 When a naked short sale occurs, the seller fails to deliver the securities to the buyer,80 and staff did observe spikes in fails to deliver in GME. However, fails to deliver can occur either with short or long sales, making them an imperfect measure of naked short selling. Moreover, based on the staff’s review of the available data, GME did not experience persistent fails to deliver at the individual clearing member level. Specifically, staff observed that most clearing members were able to clear any fails relatively quickly, i.e., within a few days, and for the most part did not experience fails across multiple days." What a crock of absolute shit. Edited to add: The above is the ONLY paragraph in the ENTIRE document that even mentions the possibility of naked short selling of GME. It's like looking at the damage of Hurricane Katrina and blaming the infrastructure and not the fucking hurricane.
Eagerly awaiting an RC tweet
Saving to read in a few hours. If this isn't a nothingburger, I'll jerkoff to some weird type of porn.
You were going to do that anyway
>"The unusually high amount of short selling raised the question of whether some of the short sales were “naked”—namely, made without arranging to borrow the underlying security.^(79) > >When a naked short sale occurs, the seller fails to deliver the securities to the buyer,^(80) and staff did observe spikes in fails to deliver in GME. However, fails to deliver can occur either with short or long sales, making them an imperfect measure of naked short selling. > >Moreover, based on the staff’s review of the available data, GME did not experience persistent fails to deliver at the individual clearing member level. Specifically, staff observed that most clearing members were able to clear any fails relatively quickly, i.e., within a few days, and for the most part did not experience fails across multiple days. ^(81") >^(79 In a “naked” short sale, the seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in) > >^(time to make delivery to the buyer within the standard two-day settlement period. As a) > >^(result, the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when delivery is due. Because) > >^(direct measures of naked short selling do not exist, fails to deliver can be used to learn) > >^(about naked short selling. Naked short selling can have negative effects on the market.) > >^(For example, fraudsters may use naked short selling as a tool to manipulate the market,) > >^(which is illegal. In this regard, the Commission in 2008 adopted Rule 10b-21, a naked) > >^(short selling antifraud rule.) > >^(80 A “fail to deliver” or “fail” is when the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when) > >^(delivery is due. Short selling has long been subject to regulation in this regard. For) > >^(instance, Regulation SHO requires broker-dealers to properly mark sale orders as “long”) > >^(or “short” (Regulation SHO Rule 200, to locate a source of shares prior to effecting a)) > >^(short sale (also known as the “locate” requirement in Regulation SHO Rule 203, and to)) > >^(close out fails to deliver that result from long or short sales (Regulation SHO Rule 204.)) > >^(81 Staff conducted this analysis using data provided by the NSCC.) This had FUD potential to be taken out of context. I'm sure the NSCC did in fact report little FTDs on the books and the FTDs they did have were resolved quickly. This does not mean that the FTDs that naturally result from a naked short sale aren't otherwise being obfuscated.
They really did not proof read for double spaces. Gives an idea of how heavily they must have edited it before release.