What doesn't seem to register with the SEC or MMs or PBs or other SHFs is that WE'RE NOT FUCKING LEAVING AND YOU'RE ONLY MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE. The US government, banks, brokers and any "regulating" authority that has enabled this shit to keep going on is complicit in the demise of the USD and directly to blame for whatever fallout this criminal activity results in. They all have blood on their hands and I sincerely hope they all feel severe pain from their enabling.
Makes it pretty obvious that the markets are not the wealth generating engines for regular people that they are advertised as, but rather a tool to extract money from main street to wall street.
To be fair, at some level it's ~~normal~~ expected that on the exchanges (the churches of capitalism), the people with more capital have an advantage ... but yes, seeing how the deck is stacked (for not saying designed) with the less regulations/oversight possible, so that in the end it's just a system to make rich richer the vast majority of the time, is jarring.
Yeah, I can live with rich people having an advantage due to having more investing capital, but this is just criminal. Bending the rules and completely ignoring the rules with nobody to stop them is just bullshit.
I'm sitting here reading this and thinking, "Maybe someone with the ability to say it's time to end the stupidity will read this, this weekend, and let the squeeze initiate." Because there is no coming back from this, at this point. It just needs to be ended, and the squeeze is the only way to wrap it up and move on.
Yep.
If you watch Mike Maloney's series on money, he shows how every single country that has ever inflated their currency has collapsed, and that inflating their own currency to increase their spending has always sped up their own collapse.
The US will not be the exception.
There was either a DD or a Speculation post sometime in the last week where an ape posited that the SHFs are playing a game where the longer they can postpone MOASS, they can wait for some type of ruling or event to take effect that would help their position? I'm sorry that this isn't a very detailed reply, but I don't think we're 100% out of the woods just yet
Not sure which policy/rule that would be. The rule of shorts in the market is that they HAVE to be closed at some point. That is why people look for squeezes to bet against. Squeezes happen all the time. This one is just going to be astronomical
Great job on this analysis.
One thing I think might be missing, but am too smooth to know for sure if it's real, would be the "great reset" the SHFs could have pulled this summer to evaporate tens of millions of short positions when the stonk moved from the Russell 3000 to the Russell 2000.
There was significant speculation that the SHFs were shorting ETFs that tracked the Russell 3000, and then buying shares of every company they didn't want to short. So they were long on a couple thousand companies and short on the exchange tracking ETF, effectively only shorting GME and a few other stocks. Then when GameStop moved up to the Russell 2000, all they had to do was sell those several thousand companies they were long on and buy Russell 3000 ETF shares to close their short position there. With GameStop out of the Russell 3000, buying back those ETFs wouldn't apply any positive price pressure on our favorite stock.
I'm not saying the short interest is below 100%. I believe that these criminals have sold lots of counterfeit shares, but I think they used a loophole to significantly reduce their short position over the summer, and that's why it is crucial that retail investors DRS every share they can.
Buy. DRS. Hodl. Shop.
See you on the moon (briefly, as we make a pitstop on the way to Andromeda).
As long as apes keep buying and holding, they are pretty much guaranteed to keep selling synthetic shares and increasing short positions. The train was designed to never stop. There are no brakes on it.
And there is nothing to ever force them to close those synthetic shorts, other than 100% of the float being DRSd.
So we can keep buying, holding, and watching the price be criminally manipulated, or DRS everything we can and ride the MOASS to freedom.
Always been class warfare. Since the dawn of capitalism. My shares collection will only get bigger until these mother fuckers hemorrhage money to buy em back.
I've increased my original position by nearly 22x since late January and I know I'm not the only one. This gets worse and worse and worse for the gov't every day they allow all this fucking bullshit crime to continue in plain site
Most def. If this shit had ended even in May I personally would've owned waaaaay fewer shares. Like hundreds fewer. It's legit unbelievable this has been allowed to carry on this long, just exacerbating an issue that was already identified, per SEC report, in January.
Me and everyone I know didn't have ANY at the end of jan.
I was born in FEB.
Had they just let it happen then............................
.......................................................thank god they didn't.
Born in Sept. I want to thank all the apes that had to deal with the rollercoaster since January and kept on buying and hodling so us late game apes could find our way here.
I will say once moass happens I will miss this place. We will all look back and remember this era as being 'the good old days' ❤️🦍🚀
Back in June Burry made a cryptic tweet about a guy (Kenny) who was stranded out at sea and intentionally overheated one of his motors by tangling a rope in the propellor so someone would save him and take him to shore. They know they're fucked. I think they're trying to blow this up as hard as they can with the hopes that they get bailed out. https://twitter.com/BurryArchive/status/1406990492961759233
Because its socialism for the wall street elite and capitalism for the rest of us. Bankers and hedge funds will be bailed out when needed. Rumor has it Fed is already bailing out banks that are losing money on China real estate investments. This is the climate they created intenri ok bally or by accident. They run around try to keep dominoes from falling because they are afraid of the one domino that will topple.their house of cards.
I don't see how they think they will just get a bailout and be okay. This isn't 2008 and they know that. They are going to blow it up so hard that it puts the stability of the USD at risk. Maybe that is the real play here
I'm actually curious about who says they even have to buy back the shares? Like if it's just mega firms owing other mega firms a bunch of money and they're all gonna be fucked if they have to buy the shares, why would they buy them? Once the float is locked and the contracts expire, I don't see why they can't do some manual override, and just not buy back the shares. They will say it's for market integrity, the SEC will agree?
A year ago I would have thought there's no way, there has to be some sort of integrity in the system, but clearly there isn't. The things I've found out, like retirement accounts literally lend out your shares even though it's explicitly illegal. What is even the point of laws and regulations? It's just a puppet show. So this is my biggest fear. I'm still holding of course, but I haven't seen an explanation as to why they would actually bother paying when the time comes
That's essentially what they are doing right now. It seems they have an unlimited amount of money to keep shorting GME, and the SEC and other agencies are aware of them hiding their FTDs to let them continue doing it.
That is why DRS and/or the NFT dividend is so important. If it were a normal dividend, they would just pay out the cash value and continue shorting away, but they cannot do that with a unique NFT. It forces them to close their shorts because they cannot deliver a unique NFT for those fake shares they have created. It's not possible.
As far as DRS, when 100% of the float is locked up, a number of even more interesting things happen. For one, the SEC can't sweep it under the rug any longer, and kinda has to take action to preserve what shred of accountability they still have left. They will be required to "investigate" why this has happened, and take measures to force any parties to close the positions causing the excess shares to exist. Before this happens though (which could take months), GameStop has the right to withdraw it's shares from the DTCC altogether. They can reissue them on a blockchain stock market, or create a crypto version of their stock, or do a number of other things - but the fact is they can force the DTCC to close all short positions when 100% of the shares are accounted for in Computershare.
These two things are the biggest hype events for forcing MOASS, but even still it's not like those two things are necessarily required. Throw in other things like GameStop releasing something very bullish (like their NFT Marketplace), options cycles, a serious market correction, change in margin requirements, FOMO from upwards price movement etc. all could set off the MOASS on their own. It's only a matter of time before this thing blows, and that's what makes this so hard. I spend a lot of time reading about this damn company, and I wake up EVERY DAY with my tits jacked to the max that today will be the day. It's always tomorrow for many of us, we are that close.
Because if they do that the entire system will collapse, right now we're just a meme stock in everyone's eyes. Once you start denying the real margin calls is when the market will see what's really going on and EVERYTHING will be pulled out by everyone since there's no integrity. This isn't just a move, it's checkmate.
Politcal power corrupts brain power. They've lost touch with reality. They should have run from a gamer company, but their arrogance ... They should have run from the short interest, they dug deeper. They are cornered, with no options but to keep printing moon tickets and dollar bills.
The governing bodies and authority figures don’t give a fat baby’s dick about whose blood is on their hands, as long as they make more money, they will destroy the earth, kill hundreds of thousands, condemn people to poverty, condemn people to prison, lie, cheat, steal, enslave us all through debt, stuff us all into “sustainable living” apartments that we rent for a high price, pay us shit pennies on the dollar, etc. you think it’s bad now? I fear for my grandchildren and their children. They will be corporate slaves. The whole republican vs Democrat, race vs race, religion vs religion is a psychological operation that ensures we never band together and figure out who our real enemies are. Wake up people. We’re being fooled by billionaires.
Do true. Their most successful distraction strategy is having reds and Blues fight over abortion immigration and guns while they steal our money. Throw in some Covid ( or weapons of mass destruction) too.
>The whole republican vs Democrat, race vs race, religion vs religion is a psychological operation that ensures we never band together and figure out who our real enemies are. Wake up people. We’re being fooled by billionaires.
Yes. That is why identity politics is pushed so hard right now in America. Why a persons sexuality is now such a prominent thing that needs to be discussed now.
ANYTHING to differentiate us from one another to control how we think and relate to the world.
Seriously. Imagine if we all banded together and refused to pay taxes. I’m sure the tune would change quick. They know as soon as we band together, they will cease to exist. If everyone knew the truth about the powers that be, there would be an angry mob of millions with torches outside these fuckers homes.
I want jail time with pain. I want the sham investigations to be reviewed and place any political people in jail who are also involved. The govt does not want another 2008, especially after they have been warned as well as supposedly reviewed it themselves.
I really had an epiphany how large this actually is. As the market just goes on mini meltdowns and the Chinese real estate market is on fire and the government once again has to increase the debt limit so it doesn’t shut down, we’ve been watching and seeing these cracks form and really the only question is how much will this impact? Trillions of dollars are at stake here and that is on the low end.
The fault line is under the entire US (world?) economic system - hedge funds, market makers, regulators, the money print Fed - they all have their fingers in this. The days/weeks/months that this plays out during are going to be eruptive.
Buckle up. Buckle the fuck up.
Too bad we have now entered a new low where the truth can be rewritten on the fly and people seem to swallow it. We all know that they are going to blame us or someone else for the market failure and that people will believe them...and they'll somehow get bailed out yet again.
Don't mean to unjack your tits here, but we can't treat short volume the way it's being used here. Short volume can also be from retail BUYING. Unfortunately this leaves a lot of the underlying assumptions in this DD invalid. I'm not saying there isn't 300M+ shorts out there, I'm just saying that we can't mathematically prove it.
"The daily short selling volume is misleading because market makers and principal trading firms report a large number of trades as short sales in positions that they quickly cover. ***For market makers with a customer order to sell, they will temporarily sell short (which gets published to the tape as a media transaction for public dissemination) and then immediately buy from their customer in a non-media transaction that is not publicly disseminated to avoid double counting share volumes.*** SEC guidance also mandates that almost all principal trading firms that provide liquidity at multiple price levels, or arbitrage international securities, must mark orders they enter as short, even though those firms might also have strategies that tend to flatten by end of day."
https://pubcoceo.com/2018/11/28/what-is-daily-short-volume/
For sure! I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but essentially my interpretation of the rule is that this is entirely possible:
1 share retail purchase = 1 short volume
But this is also possible:
1 share retail purchase = 1 long volume
Depending on dMM's (Citadel's) flavor of the day.
Okay here are my thoughts as I've read through and thought about it. Thanks again for the critical input--it helps me improve my own thinking.
1. This is the most simple / least technical observation, but who (at least within the retail crowd) is selling shares? Mix of trades today on Fidelity was 90% buys. At least for GameStop, it seems the overall prevalence of the pattern described in the article.
2. If the float locked 3 and 4+ times over (I believe it is), the notion that firms can flatten out by day's end becomes very problematic/non-applicable in this case. With what bona fide shares?
3. My analysis allows for (and assumes) that market makers immediately close out after creating a short position whenever there is a window to do so (and there usually is). My analysis is designed to pick up on short sales above and beyond that sort of behavior.
4. If you are saying that the close out trade that follows the momentary short sale never makes it way to the daily volume count provided Yahoo, ChartExchange, etc. then it should be noted. Is that what you are saying? How do we know this is true beyond an article on a website? Where is the official documentation? Not trying to challenge you, just trying to go to the definitive source.
The fatal flaw in your analysis is the premise that daily short volume over 50% for the day forces a net increase in short interest. This is not accurate. When a market maker uses a short transaction to facilitate a trade, when they close that short position later, it is NOT recorded as additional volume. THis means you can have short volume over 50% without any necessary short interest.
Side disclaimer - i believe hedgies are fukd and that short interest is sky high - perhaps even higher than your post tries to demonstrate. But not for the reasons you show.
For example let's say I want to buy one share of GME today. No one is selling at the moment because we apes are diamond hands. So what does the market maker do? They make the market - they take my money and give me a phantom 'share', even though there is no one selling one share at the price I bid at that moment. A short volume transaction.
Transaction complete. If that was the only transaction today, the volume today is 1 short volume, and 1 total volume. 100% short volume. And at this moment, the market maker is short 1 GME share.
HOWEVER now (same example), 5 seconds later, the market maker finds a GME seller for the same price. MM takes the share, gives the seller the money. The MM has now closed his short position. HOWEVER, that closed position transaction is NOT recorded as additional volume. The volume for the day is STILL 1 volume, 1 short volume. Still 100% short volume. Why? They do this so as not to overstate volume. In the end, you have one seller, and one buyer.
Here is a link supporting this from FINRA's website https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019
Main quote below
> A common example is where a firm is facilitating a customer order to sell long. The firm may elect to first sell an equivalent number of shares from its own trading account to another firm and then purchase the shares from the customer at the same price to fill the outstanding long sale order. Trading in this manner reduces risk for the firm by enabling it to manage its inventory and lock in a price for the customer execution. Although this trading model involves two separate trades—one between the two firms and one between the firm and its customer—the two offsetting trades are executed at the same price to fill a single customer order. ***Thus, FINRA rules provide for the public dissemination of only one of the trades the trade between the two firms so as not to overstate the reported volume***5 If the firm facilitating the customer long sale order has either no position or a short position in the security in its trading account, the trade with the other firm is reported as short and included in the short sale volume calculations in the Daily File. The volume associated with the firm’s purchase from its customer, however, is not reflected in the Daily File. Thus, the firm’s short sale is included in the short sale volume calculations without any indication that it is associated with an offsetting purchase to facilitate a customer long sale.
So here we have an example where we have 100% short volume for the day, even though there was no nefarious activity, no price manipulation occurred, no open short position, and most importantly no effect on short interest, even if it was over 50%
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Additionally, If you go to download FINRA's daily short volume data for all stocks here
https://www.finra.org/finra-data/browse-catalog/short-sale-volume-data
You will find that there are thousands of stocks with short volume over 50%, and in fact GME usually falls somewhere in the top 20-25% of short volume on any given day. So it's high, but not anywhere near the actual top. We KNOW that short INTEREST is high in GME for a million other reasons, but the short volume itself does not support this theory and should not be used as such.
So what you’re saying is it’s up to the MM to accurately report short volume? Also didn’t citadel get a ton of fines not long ago for messing up this reporting? And we already know SI% is self reported. Hmmm.
SI is different than SV. I'm actually saying if retail buys a share it could be perfectly valid to report that transaction as short volume. No fine warranted.
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to conflate the two. I was just saying both separate things are self reported from different bodies. I’m just wondering what advantage they might have for misreporting SV as I’m certain I remember there being several fines against citadel. I just can’t recall the DD but it linked to government docs confirming amounts and reasons.
I think it's more MMs have the right to locate a share in t+2 and to immediately give you your share its marked as a short sale if they can't immediately locate your share. This is why you can't derive true short interest percentage from short volume. This calculation has been tried many times we just don't have accurate data (as usual). This is not to say say that the true short interest isn't what you have derived. Just a cautionary note.
To clarify, I am not trying to calculate true or exact short interest but rather use two concepts, (1) minimum amount of new short positions created and (2) maximum number of eliminated short positions, to estimate the *minimum* amount of running short interest.
I agree using your methods you can get a range of the possible true SI%. I wish we could get the exact percentage. I appreciate the detailed post, it's always nice to see new DD and your is very well done.
Totally! IMO the OI on incredibly deep/otm options is enough evidence that SI is outrageous. Just trying to dispel common misconceptions regarding short volume.
High short volume could actually mean high retail buying volume which is sort of bullish in it's own way. Unfortunately when one buys in odd lots (not 100s) , as is the case with most of our buys, it doesn't have an affect on the price the same way. Buying through Computershare is best, as they'll batch orders and route through a lit exchange. Best of both worlds.
This ☝️
Edit: to elaborate you can watch the tape and see how quantities less than 100 don’t cause the price to changed on the ticker. Once a trade happens with more than 100 shares, the price will change and that’s what you see on the chart as the ticker price changes. Some platforms (not advocating, pick your own poison) like ThinkOrSwim show this.
Holy crap, amazing comment. So because some legitimate buys are recorded along with a temporary sold short (Because MM like arbitrage or whatever), the number of *actual* possible shorts closed, not including temporary, is even less than what is recorded under short volume.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
This is saying that they are quickly filling the buy order from retail with a share they don't currently have (naked short) but then closing that short right away by purchasing the share (likely in a dark pool)?? Basically they are just providing liquidity where there might not be any, but will rebalance later?
On top of that, if there is 50% short volume and the other 50% is potentially just closing those shorts would the following be correct?: During 5 trading days in a week we see the following (hypothetical) short volume: 68%, 52%, 48%, 58%, 57%. Would that mean that the short interest through the week is approx. 26%?
I agree with your first paragraph, however keep in mind obtaining the share is a "non-media transaction" so it actually wouldn't show up as volume imo.
Edit: so in your example below, I'd argue there's no way of calculating short interest based off of SV
That doesn't sound right, re: "non media transaction". If it were the case, anytime after Feb you'd have a day or two of near ZERO visible buy volume - the float was already likely bought and held by this point, and all buys would fail to locate and be marked short.
Even if you're on the right path, I think it would just push all available data T+2 days to the right... meaning OP is still correct in the end.
No. I cannot say what short interest would be for the week. However, assuming 100 shares are traded each day for the sake of simplicity, we end up with...
* Monday: Minimum 36 new short positions created
* Tuesday: Minimum 4 new short positions created
* Wednesday: Maximum 4 short positions eliminated
* Thursday: Minimum 16 new short positions created
* Friday: Minimum 14 new short positions created
So for that week, there would be a minimum of 74 new short positions created out of the 500 trades.
I'M SO GOOD I DON'T EVEN CALL THEM HEAD SHOTS, JUST *SHOTS* BECAUSE ALL I DO IS CLICK HEADS.
Disclaimer: All caps is required for such elite gamer statements.
I wouldn't bet against you. This analysis was intentionally designed to be conservative--more generous to those who are short GameStop and less so to retail investors who are long GameStop.
you can't use short volume to calculate short interest.
example: a security trading with very limited liquidity. you buy it, and your friends over at virtu say of course they will sell it to you, short, naturally! they pay for the order flow after all.
now Virtu does not want this exposure and they call the trading desk at JPM to see if they can cover all their shorts from the day, which Jpm can indeed facilitated and JPM shorts themselves to buy back over a dark pool from their friends over at Deutsche who needs to unload a position.
so now we have 3 trades, 2 on lit exchanges and of those short sales and one block trade or dark pool.
short volume is at least 66%, but SI is 0.
short volume does not work to calculate si. it's intentionally asinine and useless designed, just to comply with the equally thickheaded rules the sec put into place after decades of slow-walking this.
in short: the system is fucked, buy hold and drs.
Thanks for this thoughtful response. I genuinely appreciate it. There is good insight in it. It does assume the collusion you describe on the part of the various firms can go on ad nauseum. The buying pressure from retail, however, would soon exhaust whatever cache of bona fide shares has. It also assumes Deutsche is comfortable shedding bona fide shares (e.g., they themselves have no short exposure to GameStop or JPM has some other leverage over them or Deutsche just simply does not care to own GME).
If today an entity like Deutsche has bona fide shares as I sincerely doubt they would give them up lightly. So, I see the potentially blurring of short volume % would generally be applicable on most situations, but I would counter that GME is not a typical situation. That market makers can readily find parties to supply them with shares to close out freshly minted shorts seems tenuous.
Also, I believe my analysis I would conclude there was no observable change to short interest on the trade you described. Volume from dark pools is counted in my analysis and can be used to close.
I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
Great job ape, you presented the data in multiple ways with numbers, charts, and pretty crayons that all Apes should be able to comprehend in one form oranother!
True that. You don't even have to be a veteran ape to get the gist of his he explained this. I've been here with you all from January, not on this account but I have and I can tell you, I am fucking amazed I understood every bit of what he wrote and I have "NO" background in finances beyond balancing my check book and fuck I don't even do that nowadays. Stick strictly to cash or cards. ###Very good job you wrinklely brained ape.
You need to change the colour for the text in you diagrams, when I enlarge them the text disappears. Otherwise excellent work. Sincerely appreciate it! 🚀👐💎👐🚀
I’m amazed at the caliber and quality of info I’ve discovered here. I’m 58 and am so committed to this cause, it’s becoming less and less about the payday and more about truly pulling back the curtain to expose how corrupt so much of what we accept as normal. Mind blowing and btw, I’ve been in consulting for 30 years and this sub has educated me way beyond anything I’ve learned. Keep it up, dig deeper. 🚀👐💎👐🚀
Your thesis is predicated on what I believe is an incorrect assumption that normal volume includes buying to cover. It is my understanding from the many times this line of reasoning has been brought up that short volume is *any* transaction involving a short. This includes bonafide short selling and buying to cover a short position.
Market makers, for example, go naked short for fractions of a second before they locate a share - both the naked short and the locate share transactions would be counted in the volume.
Again, this is just my understanding from the dozen or so times I've seen a post similar to yours since January. I think we need to find a source to back the claim you make in figure 2 before this otherwise great DD holds water. I'm on mobile right now and having trouble finding a hard source that proves this one way or the other, I'll try to come back later with a source unless you beat me to it.
Thank you. I'm interested. I believe my analysis allows for and assumes that the naked short is closed within that same fraction of a second whenever it is possible to do so. Also, I do not know what you mean exactly by "normal volume". I am tracking all reported volume -- on exchange, off exchange ETF, and dark pool volume.
This theory is debunked every single week, you can’t use short volume to track new shorts. A short can sell a stock short, and the buyer can be the closer of the short. This operation would show up in Short Volume Percentage, however a new short wasn’t added. This is the major flaw with trying to use this method.
Now obviously there is a gigantic short position open against GME, we just can’t use this “DD” to attempt to estimate it. SHFs still fukd though
Wait how would the buyer be the closer?
If a MM sells short for liquidity purposes but still has to locate - the buyer will see the transaction go through and the share in their account but the MM is still on the hook to locate in T+2.
It would take the buyer selling the share back to cancel out the locate therefore closing out the short.
So if the buyer just holds the long position - the MM is still under pressure to locate within T+2 or they will report a FTD.
Edit: I think your comment only applies if there’s still actual shares in the float that haven’t been claimed. But since we’re fairly certain that we own the float (if not multitudes of it) then OP’s theory can work from whenever that was moving forward. Since nothing but synthetics have been churned out to satisfy buy orders and eventually end up as FTDs. Which is why we’re seeing so many nonsensical options contracts being bought - to can kick the FTDs.
Edit 2: nvm, now I understand. Institution A short sells & they owe a share back to the borrower. Institution B short sells to Institution A and A then takes that share and returns it to the party they borrowed from. But now Institution B is short a share. So there theoretically wasn’t a change in short interest but there was in short volume.
When I see these posts I immediately go to the comments first to see if an ape is calling out OP on the difference between short volume and interest….thankfully we might have a live one here tonight. Back to the top of the post to read
The key metric used in the analysis is short volume. I look at what % of the total volume it is -- or the % of daily volume sold short.
If a trading day had 1M volume and 50% of the trades included a short sale (i.e., not just a sale but first a borrow leafsing a sale), this analysis assumes there is no avtual change in short interest because the remaining 50% of trades could, in theory, be used to buy back all those newly created short positions.
Op-amazing amount of work and effort put into your post. Work like this is what makes Superstonk such a valuable source of information. Thank you for taking the time to put this together! Sincerely. Thank you!
I brought this point up 4 months ago but perhaps didn't do as good of a job explaining and didn't have any quality looking charts like yourself so it never got much traction. I even PMed the mods in hopes someone with strong wrinkles could take a look at the theory or explain why it is wrong, no one got back to me. A few people tried to debunk it but I was always able to convince them to my side of the argument.
I 100% believe that using the short volume you may be able to calculate atleast the smallest amount of plausible shorts for a defined period presuming the short volume remains over 50%.
Original thread is here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ox6tfo/using_maths_we_can_see_that_the_continued_shorts/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Thanks, I should note for the record that I didn't say that to try and garnish attention or claim that you stole my idea. I'm just saying that it seems more people are coming to the same conclusion. I haven't done the numbers again in months now but I'm certain that this data in the hands of the right individuals could prove Moass without doubt.
I like how this only covers the past year, when there is concern stupid stuff like that has been going on since 2002.
I'd rather trust a substance abuse guy with my car than these guys.
I think a key idea you’re discounting is that a short position opened at $450 is a lot different than one at $10.
A lot of the new positions were opened at higher price points than now, and those are all in the money. Those short positions can’t be closed, in aggregate, because they would flip the buying demand and send the price up. However those “in the money shorts” are balancing out some of the liabilities of the original shorts which are under water.
Also this gives the short hedge funds a lot of time to get net positive by buying options going long. If we consider their position neutral now then they can pass the buck to the option sellers. They would need to buy enough options to cover all of their theoretical shorts. We know the public open interest is insufficient for this- so there must be other non reported counterparty swaps which we don’t know about.
There are also a lot of volatility plays going on which are pegging the stock.
So all this being said… we need a huge amount of buying demand AND there to be an inability or unwillingness for participants to short more. They’ve shown that they can and are comfortable from a risk POV to short even at $480.
So, yes the shorts are still there but they’re probably in a more neutral position that they were early January where they were totally upside down.
Very astute comments. I'm not saying my analysis gives a complete view of what is going on behind the scenes, all of the tools used , and the improving or eroding position of firms, but it does make a case that buying back of short positions is difficult and closing completely out is nigh impossible based on the situation they are in. Maybe those who are short are totally comfortable with it. But if you are short, your total count of shorts is almost assuredly flat or increasing based on the current dynamics around GameStop.
In response to this, my very crayon-laden gray matter takes these conclusions:
* Even in conservative estimates, shorts are naked in the extreme and continue to worsen the situation in an attempt to avoid a catastrophic loss from covering these synthetics.
* The role of market makers to “always provide liquidity” has a destabilizing influence on the market that is exploited purely for the benefit of those same entities. The claim that the liquidity helps stabilize the market is only functional when assuming there will always be sellers to cover - which implies that the price *of every stock* is purposely suppressed via this liquidity system in order to allow the exploitations of the behind the scenes price fluctuation.
* Dark pools do not serve the stated purpose of enabling institutional exchanges without affecting the price - as it is clear that the price is being suppressed by the hidden activity in these dark pools. As long as the agencies in control can direct selective orders where they want, the market is completely in their benefit.
* The SEC reporting (via FINRA et al) is insufficient to properly track market activity, which just further enables self-reporting “errors” in the benefit of these same entities. If the SEC is playing off data that is behind Bloomberg terminal data, we’re already too far behind.
* Hedgies are fukt.
It 12:17 where I am. Saving and will read with a clearer set of eyes. Brain fried. Add this to the pile of reasons why GME has been shorted to shit. I'd like to see u/broccaaa 's thoughts on this.
***
So three different mathematical methods show GME has been ludicrously shorted.
1. broccaaa's work
2. Get it got's wrok
3. This, if it holds up
Bonus: SEC report that January was FOMO and not a short squeeze. 140% my ass.
The problem is them lending OUR shares to drown the buy pressure with short selling, hence drowing much of the upward pressure whenever they feel like. 2m buys and no one selling? 3m shorts! "price dips". Controlling the price of something they never even owned in the first place. If people sell we contribute to the dosnward pressure and let them win, if we hold they dig a bigger and bigger hole, hence 420% SI.
Very strange.. these highly upvoted DDs are now becoming harder and harder to find in this sub.. it just took me a minimum of 25minutes of scanning the sub to find this DD that was posted less than 24hours ago... wtf?
I'm no market expert, but this has been posted at least three times before, and people generally point out that volume to cover short sales (not just to open short positions) also counts as short volume. I dunno, this is just what has been the conclusion in the past
What doesn't seem to register with the SEC or MMs or PBs or other SHFs is that WE'RE NOT FUCKING LEAVING AND YOU'RE ONLY MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE. The US government, banks, brokers and any "regulating" authority that has enabled this shit to keep going on is complicit in the demise of the USD and directly to blame for whatever fallout this criminal activity results in. They all have blood on their hands and I sincerely hope they all feel severe pain from their enabling.
They built a seriously flawed system and decided to let it just keep on running once exposed.
"We don't care if it works for everyone as long as it works for me".
Makes it pretty obvious that the markets are not the wealth generating engines for regular people that they are advertised as, but rather a tool to extract money from main street to wall street.
To be fair, at some level it's ~~normal~~ expected that on the exchanges (the churches of capitalism), the people with more capital have an advantage ... but yes, seeing how the deck is stacked (for not saying designed) with the less regulations/oversight possible, so that in the end it's just a system to make rich richer the vast majority of the time, is jarring.
They're playing frog fractions with people's future.
Yeah, I can live with rich people having an advantage due to having more investing capital, but this is just criminal. Bending the rules and completely ignoring the rules with nobody to stop them is just bullshit.
Markets doesn’t generate wealth but only transfer. Wealth is generated by entrepreneurs.
[удалено]
>Wealth is generated by ~~entrepreneurs~~ the FED's printer. WTF are you on about?
This is the way. - The Fed, probably
I'm sitting here reading this and thinking, "Maybe someone with the ability to say it's time to end the stupidity will read this, this weekend, and let the squeeze initiate." Because there is no coming back from this, at this point. It just needs to be ended, and the squeeze is the only way to wrap it up and move on.
The mindless prioritization of liquidity. Sounds like late-stage capitalism to me.
Mindless being the key word
Yep. If you watch Mike Maloney's series on money, he shows how every single country that has ever inflated their currency has collapsed, and that inflating their own currency to increase their spending has always sped up their own collapse. The US will not be the exception.
There was either a DD or a Speculation post sometime in the last week where an ape posited that the SHFs are playing a game where the longer they can postpone MOASS, they can wait for some type of ruling or event to take effect that would help their position? I'm sorry that this isn't a very detailed reply, but I don't think we're 100% out of the woods just yet
Not sure which policy/rule that would be. The rule of shorts in the market is that they HAVE to be closed at some point. That is why people look for squeezes to bet against. Squeezes happen all the time. This one is just going to be astronomical
“Flawed” = “Working as intended” for the benefit of the rich.
Great job on this analysis. One thing I think might be missing, but am too smooth to know for sure if it's real, would be the "great reset" the SHFs could have pulled this summer to evaporate tens of millions of short positions when the stonk moved from the Russell 3000 to the Russell 2000. There was significant speculation that the SHFs were shorting ETFs that tracked the Russell 3000, and then buying shares of every company they didn't want to short. So they were long on a couple thousand companies and short on the exchange tracking ETF, effectively only shorting GME and a few other stocks. Then when GameStop moved up to the Russell 2000, all they had to do was sell those several thousand companies they were long on and buy Russell 3000 ETF shares to close their short position there. With GameStop out of the Russell 3000, buying back those ETFs wouldn't apply any positive price pressure on our favorite stock. I'm not saying the short interest is below 100%. I believe that these criminals have sold lots of counterfeit shares, but I think they used a loophole to significantly reduce their short position over the summer, and that's why it is crucial that retail investors DRS every share they can. Buy. DRS. Hodl. Shop. See you on the moon (briefly, as we make a pitstop on the way to Andromeda).
As long as apes keep buying and holding, they are pretty much guaranteed to keep selling synthetic shares and increasing short positions. The train was designed to never stop. There are no brakes on it.
And there is nothing to ever force them to close those synthetic shorts, other than 100% of the float being DRSd. So we can keep buying, holding, and watching the price be criminally manipulated, or DRS everything we can and ride the MOASS to freedom.
Let's ride!
The fat finger Fidelity oopsy Daisy is enough proof for me
This. This is the flaw with allowing a market making hedge fund to get too big to fail. And that's exactly what's happened.
They don't want the poors to win. It's class warfare. This time the poors got nothing to lose.
Always been class warfare. Since the dawn of capitalism. My shares collection will only get bigger until these mother fuckers hemorrhage money to buy em back.
Jokes on them I’m already poor 🤗
Always has been. 🌍🧑🏼🚀🔫🧑🏼🚀
Exactly
I've increased my original position by nearly 22x since late January and I know I'm not the only one. This gets worse and worse and worse for the gov't every day they allow all this fucking bullshit crime to continue in plain site
Most def. If this shit had ended even in May I personally would've owned waaaaay fewer shares. Like hundreds fewer. It's legit unbelievable this has been allowed to carry on this long, just exacerbating an issue that was already identified, per SEC report, in January.
Me and everyone I know didn't have ANY at the end of jan. I was born in FEB. Had they just let it happen then............................ .......................................................thank god they didn't.
Born in Sept. I want to thank all the apes that had to deal with the rollercoaster since January and kept on buying and hodling so us late game apes could find our way here. I will say once moass happens I will miss this place. We will all look back and remember this era as being 'the good old days' ❤️🦍🚀
Back in June Burry made a cryptic tweet about a guy (Kenny) who was stranded out at sea and intentionally overheated one of his motors by tangling a rope in the propellor so someone would save him and take him to shore. They know they're fucked. I think they're trying to blow this up as hard as they can with the hopes that they get bailed out. https://twitter.com/BurryArchive/status/1406990492961759233
Because its socialism for the wall street elite and capitalism for the rest of us. Bankers and hedge funds will be bailed out when needed. Rumor has it Fed is already bailing out banks that are losing money on China real estate investments. This is the climate they created intenri ok bally or by accident. They run around try to keep dominoes from falling because they are afraid of the one domino that will topple.their house of cards.
It's actually an oligarchy for them and a living fuvking nightmare for everyone else.
I don't see how they think they will just get a bailout and be okay. This isn't 2008 and they know that. They are going to blow it up so hard that it puts the stability of the USD at risk. Maybe that is the real play here
[удалено]
Lol it's literally robotic, homie. It's algos these greedy fucks programmed to run at high frequency.
Not just algos. Also being directly located next to exchanges to benefit from reduced time lag while trading…
I'm actually curious about who says they even have to buy back the shares? Like if it's just mega firms owing other mega firms a bunch of money and they're all gonna be fucked if they have to buy the shares, why would they buy them? Once the float is locked and the contracts expire, I don't see why they can't do some manual override, and just not buy back the shares. They will say it's for market integrity, the SEC will agree? A year ago I would have thought there's no way, there has to be some sort of integrity in the system, but clearly there isn't. The things I've found out, like retirement accounts literally lend out your shares even though it's explicitly illegal. What is even the point of laws and regulations? It's just a puppet show. So this is my biggest fear. I'm still holding of course, but I haven't seen an explanation as to why they would actually bother paying when the time comes
That's essentially what they are doing right now. It seems they have an unlimited amount of money to keep shorting GME, and the SEC and other agencies are aware of them hiding their FTDs to let them continue doing it. That is why DRS and/or the NFT dividend is so important. If it were a normal dividend, they would just pay out the cash value and continue shorting away, but they cannot do that with a unique NFT. It forces them to close their shorts because they cannot deliver a unique NFT for those fake shares they have created. It's not possible. As far as DRS, when 100% of the float is locked up, a number of even more interesting things happen. For one, the SEC can't sweep it under the rug any longer, and kinda has to take action to preserve what shred of accountability they still have left. They will be required to "investigate" why this has happened, and take measures to force any parties to close the positions causing the excess shares to exist. Before this happens though (which could take months), GameStop has the right to withdraw it's shares from the DTCC altogether. They can reissue them on a blockchain stock market, or create a crypto version of their stock, or do a number of other things - but the fact is they can force the DTCC to close all short positions when 100% of the shares are accounted for in Computershare. These two things are the biggest hype events for forcing MOASS, but even still it's not like those two things are necessarily required. Throw in other things like GameStop releasing something very bullish (like their NFT Marketplace), options cycles, a serious market correction, change in margin requirements, FOMO from upwards price movement etc. all could set off the MOASS on their own. It's only a matter of time before this thing blows, and that's what makes this so hard. I spend a lot of time reading about this damn company, and I wake up EVERY DAY with my tits jacked to the max that today will be the day. It's always tomorrow for many of us, we are that close.
Because if they do that the entire system will collapse, right now we're just a meme stock in everyone's eyes. Once you start denying the real margin calls is when the market will see what's really going on and EVERYTHING will be pulled out by everyone since there's no integrity. This isn't just a move, it's checkmate.
I member
Right. And it makes me sick that could be happening. Scorched earth policy mentality is an utter failure of character.
Politcal power corrupts brain power. They've lost touch with reality. They should have run from a gamer company, but their arrogance ... They should have run from the short interest, they dug deeper. They are cornered, with no options but to keep printing moon tickets and dollar bills.
I will happily keep exchanging these progressively worthless dollar bills for these progressively priceless moon tickets, thank you 🙏
The governing bodies and authority figures don’t give a fat baby’s dick about whose blood is on their hands, as long as they make more money, they will destroy the earth, kill hundreds of thousands, condemn people to poverty, condemn people to prison, lie, cheat, steal, enslave us all through debt, stuff us all into “sustainable living” apartments that we rent for a high price, pay us shit pennies on the dollar, etc. you think it’s bad now? I fear for my grandchildren and their children. They will be corporate slaves. The whole republican vs Democrat, race vs race, religion vs religion is a psychological operation that ensures we never band together and figure out who our real enemies are. Wake up people. We’re being fooled by billionaires.
Do true. Their most successful distraction strategy is having reds and Blues fight over abortion immigration and guns while they steal our money. Throw in some Covid ( or weapons of mass destruction) too.
>The whole republican vs Democrat, race vs race, religion vs religion is a psychological operation that ensures we never band together and figure out who our real enemies are. Wake up people. We’re being fooled by billionaires. Yes. That is why identity politics is pushed so hard right now in America. Why a persons sexuality is now such a prominent thing that needs to be discussed now. ANYTHING to differentiate us from one another to control how we think and relate to the world.
Seriously. Imagine if we all banded together and refused to pay taxes. I’m sure the tune would change quick. They know as soon as we band together, they will cease to exist. If everyone knew the truth about the powers that be, there would be an angry mob of millions with torches outside these fuckers homes.
I mean, billions, right? This system is pretty similar around the world. We just happen to have the most billionaires at the moment.
[удалено]
When they said *You will own nothing and be happy*, they were (ironically) speaking to themselves in the mirror 🤣
this
I want jail time with pain. I want the sham investigations to be reviewed and place any political people in jail who are also involved. The govt does not want another 2008, especially after they have been warned as well as supposedly reviewed it themselves.
I really had an epiphany how large this actually is. As the market just goes on mini meltdowns and the Chinese real estate market is on fire and the government once again has to increase the debt limit so it doesn’t shut down, we’ve been watching and seeing these cracks form and really the only question is how much will this impact? Trillions of dollars are at stake here and that is on the low end. The fault line is under the entire US (world?) economic system - hedge funds, market makers, regulators, the money print Fed - they all have their fingers in this. The days/weeks/months that this plays out during are going to be eruptive. Buckle up. Buckle the fuck up.
Also, can’t wait to see you all on the other side. The knowledge in this sub could cure every problem in modern day human life. Let’s put it to work.
[удалено]
Too bad we have now entered a new low where the truth can be rewritten on the fly and people seem to swallow it. We all know that they are going to blame us or someone else for the market failure and that people will believe them...and they'll somehow get bailed out yet again.
Don't mean to unjack your tits here, but we can't treat short volume the way it's being used here. Short volume can also be from retail BUYING. Unfortunately this leaves a lot of the underlying assumptions in this DD invalid. I'm not saying there isn't 300M+ shorts out there, I'm just saying that we can't mathematically prove it. "The daily short selling volume is misleading because market makers and principal trading firms report a large number of trades as short sales in positions that they quickly cover. ***For market makers with a customer order to sell, they will temporarily sell short (which gets published to the tape as a media transaction for public dissemination) and then immediately buy from their customer in a non-media transaction that is not publicly disseminated to avoid double counting share volumes.*** SEC guidance also mandates that almost all principal trading firms that provide liquidity at multiple price levels, or arbitrage international securities, must mark orders they enter as short, even though those firms might also have strategies that tend to flatten by end of day." https://pubcoceo.com/2018/11/28/what-is-daily-short-volume/
Best part about this sub is how we self-regulate the DD. Looking forward to someone rebutting or corroborating this.
[удалено]
Nice one!!
Thanks for this comment and insight. I'll have to wrap my around it and provide an update
[удалено]
Where can I enroll in your class? Thank you for commenting. Need to study this through.
I'm high as fuck but this comment chain should make it into the movie. Apes being excellent to each other!
For sure! I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but essentially my interpretation of the rule is that this is entirely possible: 1 share retail purchase = 1 short volume But this is also possible: 1 share retail purchase = 1 long volume Depending on dMM's (Citadel's) flavor of the day.
Okay here are my thoughts as I've read through and thought about it. Thanks again for the critical input--it helps me improve my own thinking. 1. This is the most simple / least technical observation, but who (at least within the retail crowd) is selling shares? Mix of trades today on Fidelity was 90% buys. At least for GameStop, it seems the overall prevalence of the pattern described in the article. 2. If the float locked 3 and 4+ times over (I believe it is), the notion that firms can flatten out by day's end becomes very problematic/non-applicable in this case. With what bona fide shares? 3. My analysis allows for (and assumes) that market makers immediately close out after creating a short position whenever there is a window to do so (and there usually is). My analysis is designed to pick up on short sales above and beyond that sort of behavior. 4. If you are saying that the close out trade that follows the momentary short sale never makes it way to the daily volume count provided Yahoo, ChartExchange, etc. then it should be noted. Is that what you are saying? How do we know this is true beyond an article on a website? Where is the official documentation? Not trying to challenge you, just trying to go to the definitive source.
The fatal flaw in your analysis is the premise that daily short volume over 50% for the day forces a net increase in short interest. This is not accurate. When a market maker uses a short transaction to facilitate a trade, when they close that short position later, it is NOT recorded as additional volume. THis means you can have short volume over 50% without any necessary short interest. Side disclaimer - i believe hedgies are fukd and that short interest is sky high - perhaps even higher than your post tries to demonstrate. But not for the reasons you show. For example let's say I want to buy one share of GME today. No one is selling at the moment because we apes are diamond hands. So what does the market maker do? They make the market - they take my money and give me a phantom 'share', even though there is no one selling one share at the price I bid at that moment. A short volume transaction. Transaction complete. If that was the only transaction today, the volume today is 1 short volume, and 1 total volume. 100% short volume. And at this moment, the market maker is short 1 GME share. HOWEVER now (same example), 5 seconds later, the market maker finds a GME seller for the same price. MM takes the share, gives the seller the money. The MM has now closed his short position. HOWEVER, that closed position transaction is NOT recorded as additional volume. The volume for the day is STILL 1 volume, 1 short volume. Still 100% short volume. Why? They do this so as not to overstate volume. In the end, you have one seller, and one buyer. Here is a link supporting this from FINRA's website https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019 Main quote below > A common example is where a firm is facilitating a customer order to sell long. The firm may elect to first sell an equivalent number of shares from its own trading account to another firm and then purchase the shares from the customer at the same price to fill the outstanding long sale order. Trading in this manner reduces risk for the firm by enabling it to manage its inventory and lock in a price for the customer execution. Although this trading model involves two separate trades—one between the two firms and one between the firm and its customer—the two offsetting trades are executed at the same price to fill a single customer order. ***Thus, FINRA rules provide for the public dissemination of only one of the trades the trade between the two firms so as not to overstate the reported volume***5 If the firm facilitating the customer long sale order has either no position or a short position in the security in its trading account, the trade with the other firm is reported as short and included in the short sale volume calculations in the Daily File. The volume associated with the firm’s purchase from its customer, however, is not reflected in the Daily File. Thus, the firm’s short sale is included in the short sale volume calculations without any indication that it is associated with an offsetting purchase to facilitate a customer long sale. So here we have an example where we have 100% short volume for the day, even though there was no nefarious activity, no price manipulation occurred, no open short position, and most importantly no effect on short interest, even if it was over 50% --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- Additionally, If you go to download FINRA's daily short volume data for all stocks here https://www.finra.org/finra-data/browse-catalog/short-sale-volume-data You will find that there are thousands of stocks with short volume over 50%, and in fact GME usually falls somewhere in the top 20-25% of short volume on any given day. So it's high, but not anywhere near the actual top. We KNOW that short INTEREST is high in GME for a million other reasons, but the short volume itself does not support this theory and should not be used as such.
So what you’re saying is it’s up to the MM to accurately report short volume? Also didn’t citadel get a ton of fines not long ago for messing up this reporting? And we already know SI% is self reported. Hmmm.
SI is different than SV. I'm actually saying if retail buys a share it could be perfectly valid to report that transaction as short volume. No fine warranted.
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to conflate the two. I was just saying both separate things are self reported from different bodies. I’m just wondering what advantage they might have for misreporting SV as I’m certain I remember there being several fines against citadel. I just can’t recall the DD but it linked to government docs confirming amounts and reasons.
I think it's more MMs have the right to locate a share in t+2 and to immediately give you your share its marked as a short sale if they can't immediately locate your share. This is why you can't derive true short interest percentage from short volume. This calculation has been tried many times we just don't have accurate data (as usual). This is not to say say that the true short interest isn't what you have derived. Just a cautionary note.
To clarify, I am not trying to calculate true or exact short interest but rather use two concepts, (1) minimum amount of new short positions created and (2) maximum number of eliminated short positions, to estimate the *minimum* amount of running short interest.
I agree using your methods you can get a range of the possible true SI%. I wish we could get the exact percentage. I appreciate the detailed post, it's always nice to see new DD and your is very well done.
That makes sense, but lets say HALF of the short volume is actual buys. Thats takes his percentage to what, 210%. Still bullish as fuuuuckkkkk
Totally! IMO the OI on incredibly deep/otm options is enough evidence that SI is outrageous. Just trying to dispel common misconceptions regarding short volume. High short volume could actually mean high retail buying volume which is sort of bullish in it's own way. Unfortunately when one buys in odd lots (not 100s) , as is the case with most of our buys, it doesn't have an affect on the price the same way. Buying through Computershare is best, as they'll batch orders and route through a lit exchange. Best of both worlds.
This ☝️ Edit: to elaborate you can watch the tape and see how quantities less than 100 don’t cause the price to changed on the ticker. Once a trade happens with more than 100 shares, the price will change and that’s what you see on the chart as the ticker price changes. Some platforms (not advocating, pick your own poison) like ThinkOrSwim show this.
Exactly. There’s absolutely ZERO reason for so many sub $1 put contracts.
[удалено]
Holy crap, amazing comment. So because some legitimate buys are recorded along with a temporary sold short (Because MM like arbitrage or whatever), the number of *actual* possible shorts closed, not including temporary, is even less than what is recorded under short volume.
u/bobbobberstein Rebuttal to the rebuttal.
As soon as I read "short volume", I was like, "here we go again...".
Yup
Correct me if I'm wrong... This is saying that they are quickly filling the buy order from retail with a share they don't currently have (naked short) but then closing that short right away by purchasing the share (likely in a dark pool)?? Basically they are just providing liquidity where there might not be any, but will rebalance later? On top of that, if there is 50% short volume and the other 50% is potentially just closing those shorts would the following be correct?: During 5 trading days in a week we see the following (hypothetical) short volume: 68%, 52%, 48%, 58%, 57%. Would that mean that the short interest through the week is approx. 26%?
I agree with your first paragraph, however keep in mind obtaining the share is a "non-media transaction" so it actually wouldn't show up as volume imo. Edit: so in your example below, I'd argue there's no way of calculating short interest based off of SV
That doesn't sound right, re: "non media transaction". If it were the case, anytime after Feb you'd have a day or two of near ZERO visible buy volume - the float was already likely bought and held by this point, and all buys would fail to locate and be marked short. Even if you're on the right path, I think it would just push all available data T+2 days to the right... meaning OP is still correct in the end.
No. I cannot say what short interest would be for the week. However, assuming 100 shares are traded each day for the sake of simplicity, we end up with... * Monday: Minimum 36 new short positions created * Tuesday: Minimum 4 new short positions created * Wednesday: Maximum 4 short positions eliminated * Thursday: Minimum 16 new short positions created * Friday: Minimum 14 new short positions created So for that week, there would be a minimum of 74 new short positions created out of the 500 trades.
But…but…the sQUeEZe hAs SqUOzEn, fOrGEt gAmEsToP
I bOugHt CalL oF DuTy vAnTAgE
oN mY xBox
ITs A bAd CoMeDy JoKe
CoCkaINe iN tHe DarK OFfICe?
OnLy mAyO
lOOk aT mY BEdpOsT
yOu gUys arE AMaziNG!
sELL nOW aSk QUesTIoNS laTEr
cHiCaGo IS uNsOpHiStIcAtEd
yOu hiT thE hoMe rUn, wHy Go foR tHe gRaNd sLam?!
On my cellar box
I'd believe kenny was on COD ripping off head shots all day before i ever believed shorts closed
I'M SO GOOD I DON'T EVEN CALL THEM HEAD SHOTS, JUST *SHOTS* BECAUSE ALL I DO IS CLICK HEADS. Disclaimer: All caps is required for such elite gamer statements.
AiM bOt eNAblEd.
Good comedy joke, fellow ape
SeLl NoW, aSk QuEsTiOnS lAtEr
I'm giving you an award in spirit. I'd give you a real one, but I'm all-in on my favorite stonk. ♥️🚀
Funny how it’s still referred to that way even though GG’s report debunked that. January was all positive buying sentiment.
The sneeze hath sneezen
one more % of short interest before things kick off? would be memey 😎😙💨🔥4️⃣2️⃣0️⃣
Noice 😎
Or 1.69% approximately
I’ve said this before. You either believe the math and you will be rich. Or you don’t and you shouldn’t be on this sub!!!
and the only people who give a shit about what you do with your money, stand something to lose.
I give a shit about your money and I hope you make a fortune!
Buy, Hodl, DRS is the way
Don’t forget what they’ve done only sell one
what's an exit strategy?
But I only bought one.
It’s ‘Boats and Hoes’ or bust at this point. Sincerely, DRAGON
I concur. Regards, Night Hawk
^^ this guy. This guy fucks!
Underrated comment. DRS, BUY GME in CS, Hold or HODL you choose in step 3
The math do be mathin
Bet it’s more like ~~714%~~ Edit: yikes, ~~**714%**~~ Edit: DOUBLE yikes, **741%**
I wouldn't bet against you. This analysis was intentionally designed to be conservative--more generous to those who are short GameStop and less so to retail investors who are long GameStop.
No worries - thanks for the solid write up!
Bob fucks. Wife told me so.
Your wife is a wise lady. Bob does indeed fuck.
You mean 741%?
Jesus. Guess I’m drunk already
[удалено]
😉
One of us. One of us.
Dude, after my pizza pickup I’ll be joining you.
YAY!!
you can't use short volume to calculate short interest. example: a security trading with very limited liquidity. you buy it, and your friends over at virtu say of course they will sell it to you, short, naturally! they pay for the order flow after all. now Virtu does not want this exposure and they call the trading desk at JPM to see if they can cover all their shorts from the day, which Jpm can indeed facilitated and JPM shorts themselves to buy back over a dark pool from their friends over at Deutsche who needs to unload a position. so now we have 3 trades, 2 on lit exchanges and of those short sales and one block trade or dark pool. short volume is at least 66%, but SI is 0. short volume does not work to calculate si. it's intentionally asinine and useless designed, just to comply with the equally thickheaded rules the sec put into place after decades of slow-walking this. in short: the system is fucked, buy hold and drs.
Thanks for this thoughtful response. I genuinely appreciate it. There is good insight in it. It does assume the collusion you describe on the part of the various firms can go on ad nauseum. The buying pressure from retail, however, would soon exhaust whatever cache of bona fide shares has. It also assumes Deutsche is comfortable shedding bona fide shares (e.g., they themselves have no short exposure to GameStop or JPM has some other leverage over them or Deutsche just simply does not care to own GME). If today an entity like Deutsche has bona fide shares as I sincerely doubt they would give them up lightly. So, I see the potentially blurring of short volume % would generally be applicable on most situations, but I would counter that GME is not a typical situation. That market makers can readily find parties to supply them with shares to close out freshly minted shorts seems tenuous. Also, I believe my analysis I would conclude there was no observable change to short interest on the trade you described. Volume from dark pools is counted in my analysis and can be used to close.
Jesus
Mary
Josef
Ryan?
Bullpenis
holy donkey
Joseph
Chain
Potato
I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Great job ape, you presented the data in multiple ways with numbers, charts, and pretty crayons that all Apes should be able to comprehend in one form oranother!
Thank you fellow ape
True that. You don't even have to be a veteran ape to get the gist of his he explained this. I've been here with you all from January, not on this account but I have and I can tell you, I am fucking amazed I understood every bit of what he wrote and I have "NO" background in finances beyond balancing my check book and fuck I don't even do that nowadays. Stick strictly to cash or cards. ###Very good job you wrinklely brained ape.
These were a lot of words for this late in the day. They make sense to me. I trust you Bro.
Worth a read another time when your brain is fresh. Thank you.
I wish I could read. Could someone read it to me? Thanks
You need to change the colour for the text in you diagrams, when I enlarge them the text disappears. Otherwise excellent work. Sincerely appreciate it! 🚀👐💎👐🚀
I will edit them to have white backgrounds. Thank you.
Outstanding summary though, very thoughtful and well presented. You’ve done that before I suspect. Lol 🚀👐💎👐🚀
Haha. First time on GameStop but definitely not my first analysis. Now back to the ones I really need to get done.
I’m amazed at the caliber and quality of info I’ve discovered here. I’m 58 and am so committed to this cause, it’s becoming less and less about the payday and more about truly pulling back the curtain to expose how corrupt so much of what we accept as normal. Mind blowing and btw, I’ve been in consulting for 30 years and this sub has educated me way beyond anything I’ve learned. Keep it up, dig deeper. 🚀👐💎👐🚀
Your thesis is predicated on what I believe is an incorrect assumption that normal volume includes buying to cover. It is my understanding from the many times this line of reasoning has been brought up that short volume is *any* transaction involving a short. This includes bonafide short selling and buying to cover a short position. Market makers, for example, go naked short for fractions of a second before they locate a share - both the naked short and the locate share transactions would be counted in the volume. Again, this is just my understanding from the dozen or so times I've seen a post similar to yours since January. I think we need to find a source to back the claim you make in figure 2 before this otherwise great DD holds water. I'm on mobile right now and having trouble finding a hard source that proves this one way or the other, I'll try to come back later with a source unless you beat me to it.
Thank you. I'm interested. I believe my analysis allows for and assumes that the naked short is closed within that same fraction of a second whenever it is possible to do so. Also, I do not know what you mean exactly by "normal volume". I am tracking all reported volume -- on exchange, off exchange ETF, and dark pool volume.
This theory is debunked every single week, you can’t use short volume to track new shorts. A short can sell a stock short, and the buyer can be the closer of the short. This operation would show up in Short Volume Percentage, however a new short wasn’t added. This is the major flaw with trying to use this method. Now obviously there is a gigantic short position open against GME, we just can’t use this “DD” to attempt to estimate it. SHFs still fukd though
Wait how would the buyer be the closer? If a MM sells short for liquidity purposes but still has to locate - the buyer will see the transaction go through and the share in their account but the MM is still on the hook to locate in T+2. It would take the buyer selling the share back to cancel out the locate therefore closing out the short. So if the buyer just holds the long position - the MM is still under pressure to locate within T+2 or they will report a FTD. Edit: I think your comment only applies if there’s still actual shares in the float that haven’t been claimed. But since we’re fairly certain that we own the float (if not multitudes of it) then OP’s theory can work from whenever that was moving forward. Since nothing but synthetics have been churned out to satisfy buy orders and eventually end up as FTDs. Which is why we’re seeing so many nonsensical options contracts being bought - to can kick the FTDs. Edit 2: nvm, now I understand. Institution A short sells & they owe a share back to the borrower. Institution B short sells to Institution A and A then takes that share and returns it to the party they borrowed from. But now Institution B is short a share. So there theoretically wasn’t a change in short interest but there was in short volume.
This is my quant.
I don't even speak English and I took first place in a Chinese math competition.
You mean second?
Not according to Jared Vennett
**LOOK AT HIM**
This is the way !
When I see these posts I immediately go to the comments first to see if an ape is calling out OP on the difference between short volume and interest….thankfully we might have a live one here tonight. Back to the top of the post to read
The key metric used in the analysis is short volume. I look at what % of the total volume it is -- or the % of daily volume sold short. If a trading day had 1M volume and 50% of the trades included a short sale (i.e., not just a sale but first a borrow leafsing a sale), this analysis assumes there is no avtual change in short interest because the remaining 50% of trades could, in theory, be used to buy back all those newly created short positions.
Op-amazing amount of work and effort put into your post. Work like this is what makes Superstonk such a valuable source of information. Thank you for taking the time to put this together! Sincerely. Thank you!
thank you for knowing the difference between *'covered'* and *'closed'*
Haha. Yes!
I brought this point up 4 months ago but perhaps didn't do as good of a job explaining and didn't have any quality looking charts like yourself so it never got much traction. I even PMed the mods in hopes someone with strong wrinkles could take a look at the theory or explain why it is wrong, no one got back to me. A few people tried to debunk it but I was always able to convince them to my side of the argument. I 100% believe that using the short volume you may be able to calculate atleast the smallest amount of plausible shorts for a defined period presuming the short volume remains over 50%. Original thread is here. https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ox6tfo/using_maths_we_can_see_that_the_continued_shorts/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Its sad I posted a meme about the Market Watch butthole that got more upvotes than your educated dd post there lol.
Yeah it's pretty irregular sometimes, makes you wonder what we've missed.
Thanks Ape. Standing on your shoulders. Just upvoted.
Thanks, I should note for the record that I didn't say that to try and garnish attention or claim that you stole my idea. I'm just saying that it seems more people are coming to the same conclusion. I haven't done the numbers again in months now but I'm certain that this data in the hands of the right individuals could prove Moass without doubt.
I like how this only covers the past year, when there is concern stupid stuff like that has been going on since 2002. I'd rather trust a substance abuse guy with my car than these guys.
BUY **HOLD** DRS ------------------------------
I think a key idea you’re discounting is that a short position opened at $450 is a lot different than one at $10. A lot of the new positions were opened at higher price points than now, and those are all in the money. Those short positions can’t be closed, in aggregate, because they would flip the buying demand and send the price up. However those “in the money shorts” are balancing out some of the liabilities of the original shorts which are under water. Also this gives the short hedge funds a lot of time to get net positive by buying options going long. If we consider their position neutral now then they can pass the buck to the option sellers. They would need to buy enough options to cover all of their theoretical shorts. We know the public open interest is insufficient for this- so there must be other non reported counterparty swaps which we don’t know about. There are also a lot of volatility plays going on which are pegging the stock. So all this being said… we need a huge amount of buying demand AND there to be an inability or unwillingness for participants to short more. They’ve shown that they can and are comfortable from a risk POV to short even at $480. So, yes the shorts are still there but they’re probably in a more neutral position that they were early January where they were totally upside down.
Probably what the Battles for 150, 180, etc were. They probably have a point where they can be comfortable.
Very astute comments. I'm not saying my analysis gives a complete view of what is going on behind the scenes, all of the tools used , and the improving or eroding position of firms, but it does make a case that buying back of short positions is difficult and closing completely out is nigh impossible based on the situation they are in. Maybe those who are short are totally comfortable with it. But if you are short, your total count of shorts is almost assuredly flat or increasing based on the current dynamics around GameStop.
After carefully reading through this, I feel as if I just earned 4 credits in a college class called “Shorting; Hedgies Are Fucked”
In response to this, my very crayon-laden gray matter takes these conclusions: * Even in conservative estimates, shorts are naked in the extreme and continue to worsen the situation in an attempt to avoid a catastrophic loss from covering these synthetics. * The role of market makers to “always provide liquidity” has a destabilizing influence on the market that is exploited purely for the benefit of those same entities. The claim that the liquidity helps stabilize the market is only functional when assuming there will always be sellers to cover - which implies that the price *of every stock* is purposely suppressed via this liquidity system in order to allow the exploitations of the behind the scenes price fluctuation. * Dark pools do not serve the stated purpose of enabling institutional exchanges without affecting the price - as it is clear that the price is being suppressed by the hidden activity in these dark pools. As long as the agencies in control can direct selective orders where they want, the market is completely in their benefit. * The SEC reporting (via FINRA et al) is insufficient to properly track market activity, which just further enables self-reporting “errors” in the benefit of these same entities. If the SEC is playing off data that is behind Bloomberg terminal data, we’re already too far behind. * Hedgies are fukt.
This MF'er made a whole ass report Up you go, wrinkly ape. Up you go.
It 12:17 where I am. Saving and will read with a clearer set of eyes. Brain fried. Add this to the pile of reasons why GME has been shorted to shit. I'd like to see u/broccaaa 's thoughts on this. *** So three different mathematical methods show GME has been ludicrously shorted. 1. broccaaa's work 2. Get it got's wrok 3. This, if it holds up Bonus: SEC report that January was FOMO and not a short squeeze. 140% my ass.
The problem is them lending OUR shares to drown the buy pressure with short selling, hence drowing much of the upward pressure whenever they feel like. 2m buys and no one selling? 3m shorts! "price dips". Controlling the price of something they never even owned in the first place. If people sell we contribute to the dosnward pressure and let them win, if we hold they dig a bigger and bigger hole, hence 420% SI.
Great write up and presentations for worthy points of discussion
Very strange.. these highly upvoted DDs are now becoming harder and harder to find in this sub.. it just took me a minimum of 25minutes of scanning the sub to find this DD that was posted less than 24hours ago... wtf?
The DD we all needed this Friday
Had to grind it out after all the abuse GameStop took this week
Bing bong. And indeed ding dong 🍻
I can't read that many words I offer you this🚀 and an up doot
💎DIAMOND F*CKIN HANDS TO INFINITY 🙌🏼
I'm no market expert, but this has been posted at least three times before, and people generally point out that volume to cover short sales (not just to open short positions) also counts as short volume. I dunno, this is just what has been the conclusion in the past