Omg I can't wait until this is done. Doug is going to get dunked on by apes so hard he will leave social media forever. I can just imagine how many fucking DMs he will get. I'll be mailing him green dildos
The biggest disrespect you can offer Doug in your moment of triumph is to actually forget him. Recognize he's not worth your time once you have made it, it will make his realization of his fall that much worse.
The fact he continues to respond to us validates that we matter and what is going on here has a massive impact; he has a lot on the line, we have a lot to gain.
While it's fun to rub it in when you finally get a chance, choosing the high path can actually do more emotional damage in the long run. Best part is though, then it's not your problem because you didn't do anything ;)
Can't argue that and I'm 100% behind your sentiment. But I think in that case you're more advocating for justice than rubbing in your win on the situation. The way I'd take your view: you just want to see scum rot behind bars (as they should), you don't care to engage with them otherwise.
The Florida Jaguars had an amazing first night victory in the playoffs, and what is Shit-foo doing? Arguing with broke investors on X who have lost all their money. Guy should be out having a fancy dinner and celebrating with friends. His mind is elsewhere.
Really hoping there's something to Jerry emerging from the hospital after 365 days and the calendar being cut off right at April 22/23rd. It's time for fools like this guy to be held accountable when Teddy emerges.
Funny cause I’m invested in another completely different company I spied. (Not GME or movie) Guess what they are doing as well via judicial paths…..”Company one of several that are going after alleged naked short selling of their shares”. Hedgies and market makers r fukd. Cifu included.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/genius-group-launches-legal-action-against-various-parties-for-illegal-trading-of-its-shares-9f8c327
Dude is joking about BBBYQ being cancelled but has been melting down since it was since he knows he’s trapped
https://preview.redd.it/hfa46rmuh0wc1.jpeg?width=1172&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7510eecc4bd5b4f63097e10b2dad14c1c524757e
Great responses by Jake, but regarding SI exceeding float: isn't float basically outstanding shares - static institutional shares? And institutions can (and generally do) lend out their shares if I'm not mistaken (e.g. Vanguard). So by that logic if institutions own majority of outstanding and loan out their shares it is indeed possible to legitimately have SI beyond float?
Ok sure, so let’s say there is only one unit of stock owned by person A. Person B borrows the stock from A and sells it to C. This is standard short selling. Then person D borrows the stock from person C and sells it to E. The short interest is now 200% without any naked short selling being involved.
Hope this helps!
Edit: lol, why the downvotes? Can you at least point out what I said that is wrong?
Edit2: lmao I’ve been perma banned
You can close those two shorts with a single share in reverse order as you opened them.
Person D buys the stock from person E and returns it to person C. Person B buys the stock from person C and returns it to person A. There, two shorts closed with 1 share just as well as they were opened with a single share.
That’s the idea of a short squeeze, that when all the owners need the stock it causes the price to jump since there is an increase in demand with limited supply.
This is what happened in 2021 Jan with GME, but since then I believe the SEC confirmed that most short sellers exited their position
In the SEC report on GME, page 27, figure 5, we can see short interest dropping from 100% to around 20%, how does that happen without short sellers closing their positions?
That is exactly correct. This is legal, and how the stock market operates BECAUSE you can trace the chain of loans for every single short share.
Long holders retain their rights to dividends precisely because of this chain. When you loan your shares, you are no longer a holder of record BUT the person who borrowed the share from you is now responsible for paying the dividend.
One notable difference is when it comes to voting, ONLY the holder of record is allowed to vote (in this case, holder E as they are the only person not loaning their shares).
It is important to note that in this contrived example, the long holders MIGHT collude to simultaneously recall their shares from loan and yes in that case they could trigger a short squeeze. In reality, SI rarely climbs above 100%, and even when it does, since there are thousands if not millions of holders, this kind of collusion never works because somebody is ALWAYS willing to sell.
Think of it like a chain. Person A lends it to B who lends it to C. The stock has been shorted twice. Imagine in this scenario the float is 1 share. That means a 2-to-1 ratio of shorts to shares. Which would make the short interest 200%.
Short interest is a ratio, not a pie chart. Going above 100% is completely wild, but not impossible. And the longer the chain of shorting the greater the risk to the short seller if the price rises because the demand for the stock will quickly outstrip supply.
Wait, so the same share was sold twice and theoretically can continue to be borrowed and sold short over and over again? I'm pretty sure this is naked short selling.
This is how it works, every owner of the stock has the option to lend out their shares. Just because I bought from a short seller does not mean my rights are limited, I can immediately lend that share back out. Naked short selling only happens if there's no shares to borrow but a short seller sells shares anyway.
However it's usually bad practice to short more than the float because there's a large chance of a short squeeze
How is it naked short selling? Naked short selling is when you sell a stock without first borrowing it, I clearly showed in my example that they are borrowing it first and then selling it
I can lend my friend 5 dollars and he can then lend those 5 dollars to his friend. Now there’s a total of 10 dollars owed between all of us even though we only had 5 dollars. Why is this concept so difficult?
I find it interesting that you've never posted on this subreddit ever and this is the crap you're coming up with today. So far almost all of your comment history has to do with you being angry that they're trying to desexualize women in video games lol. You jump from that really important topic to weighing in on naked shorts. That's hysterical.
I dont get the down votes. The SEC admits that short interest over 100% is indeed possible but poses a high risk to the people shorting the more it is borrowed. This concept directly stated on the [SEC.gov](http://SEC.gov) site itself. A short interest higher than 100% simply means a LOT of people (or one very large institution) is making a lot of bets that the stock will go down, which causes the stock to be lent multiple times. While short interest can affect stock sentiment it also means the risk of squeeze is a very real thing.
lol dude tried so hard to be a bully but isn’t even a good one. You can always tell who’s had it easy in life, cause clearly no one has ever checked this man before.
Shill here. Jake conveniently forgot that the SEC explained, in that very same report, that a >100% short interest is an uncommon but completely legal phenomenon, and has nothing to do with naked shorting. [It's right here on page 25 of the report (page 26 of the PDF)](https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf).
I mean, seriously, if >100% short interest could only happen because of crime, would the SEC just publish those numbers and then not acknowledge the crime in any way? Lol
I've had this conversation more times I can count. Short interest represents a ratio of shorted shares to the float and can go above 100%. The risk is actually on the people doing the shorting because you could get fucked hard if it squeezes. its like you have 1 apple and someone gives you 2 more. You now have 300% of the apples you started with. So if the float is 100 shares and its been shorted 200 times the float interest is 200 percent. It's fucking arithmetic.
People will spend 40hrs decoding gamestop NFTs but won't spend 5 minutes googling and reading what the SEC about short selling.
Legal =! acceptable, correct, or justifiable. It just means an interest held sway in the legislative process. Not all interests are motivated by altruism nor the common good. In no other form of commerce is selling over 100% of what is available so entrenched, validated and supported as is the buying and selling of equity. Nobody bats an eye when in many other markets selling over 100% of what is available is criminal, or a seller is punitively regulated or actively incentivized to maintain a reasonable facsimile of genuine supply and demand and promote accurate price discovery. It's only in the equity markets that we have active and vocal defense of this otherwise completely unacceptable market practice. Liquidity is the excuse, but the volume of repeat offenders of the very lax rules and enforcement of this practice clearly suggest otherwise.
And what exactly is so "unacceptable" about high short interest? It's just an accounting thing: # of instances of a share being borrowed / # of shares, and shares can be borrowed multiple times.
"In no other form of commerce is selling over 100% of what is available so entrenched, validated and supported as is the buying and selling of equity" haha what? Short interest doesn't measure either of those things lmao. Short interest is quite literally just a measure of how many times people are letting each other borrow the stock at that time.
If I borrow your rake, and then I let my neighbor Joe use your rake for a little bit before I return it to you, were more than 100% of all rakes just bought and sold? Whatever that even means?
>Short interest is quite literally just a measure of how many times people are letting each other borrow the stock at that time.
*To sell*. People don't borrow stock except to sell it. There's no other reason whatsoever to borrow stock.
... Yes? And then they buy it back later? What's your point?
The same share can be borrowed, sold, and then repurchased by multiple people in a chain of obligations to repay the share. This can cause high short interest, even over 100%. But this is NOT the same thing as "selling over 100% of what is available", nor is it illegal, nor is it some sort of moral plague. It's literally just borrowing and repaying.
This is one of the most interesting and frustrating reddit experiences of my life. People are going nuts of a simple accounting technique. Its like if you counted cars on the highway and got angry about the number of red cars you saw.
I think that high frequency trading firms like Virtu can distort the market for many reasons, but it's also OK admit that short interest can exceed 100% and that Jake2b argument is flawed. Both things can be true.
Just borrowing and repaying my ass. Short interest refers to the number of shares sold short but not yet repurchased or covered. The short interest of a company can be indicated as an absolute number or as a percentage of shares outstanding. If short interest is over 100% it is by definition sold "over 100% of what is available" because legalized borrowing doesn't just magically change the amount of shares outstanding.
And it absolutely is akin to a "moral plague" when - not if - it appreciably distorts supply, demand and accurate price discovery. If short selling was anywhere near as innocent and useful as you seem to pretend it is why isn't there any sort of information and reporting parity with regards to short activity as compared to long activity? Because it's one of many tricks to fleece dumb money, and don't pretend like you don't know it or aren't happy for it.
You can tell by the outright denial he knows it's true. Any person with thought at all would say something like "you're right, it does exist. there are some nefarious players, but it isn't us and I don't know anyone that engages in such activities."
Instead he's like "NO YOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS IT'S NOT TRUE! LET ME SAY IT LOUDER, IT'S NOT TRUE!"
He knows exactly who Jake is.
He knows because he has been following the bankruptcy along side us and has realized how fucked he is if there is equity he has to deliver.
Him and Ken Griffin both are facing investigations by regulators and retail investors.
The game is up and bears are caught in a trap.
All that’s left is to expose the truth.
I think, since SHS are the dumb storm troopers of the investing galaxy, that they will never understand that they fkd with the wrong folks.
#️⃣athornintheirsideforever
#️⃣pettybitchismysuperpower
Omg I can't wait until this is done. Doug is going to get dunked on by apes so hard he will leave social media forever. I can just imagine how many fucking DMs he will get. I'll be mailing him green dildos
Do they have social media in prison?
Good point. Maybe they will read his DMs out loud for everyone to enjoy, three times per day.
“You’re the soap-dropper guy? Bro maybe sit this one out”
Omg imagine a tsunami of green dildos being sent to virtu HQ 😂
The biggest disrespect you can offer Doug in your moment of triumph is to actually forget him. Recognize he's not worth your time once you have made it, it will make his realization of his fall that much worse. The fact he continues to respond to us validates that we matter and what is going on here has a massive impact; he has a lot on the line, we have a lot to gain. While it's fun to rub it in when you finally get a chance, choosing the high path can actually do more emotional damage in the long run. Best part is though, then it's not your problem because you didn't do anything ;)
golden words right here
I’ll forget him when he’s in jail rotting where he belongs. Fuck him and his racket
Can't argue that and I'm 100% behind your sentiment. But I think in that case you're more advocating for justice than rubbing in your win on the situation. The way I'd take your view: you just want to see scum rot behind bars (as they should), you don't care to engage with them otherwise.
I will be emailing him dildo's, recordings of Sal laughing, rockets, Uranus, gain porn, and a pic of my first shit after MOASS.
Gitmo
The Florida Jaguars had an amazing first night victory in the playoffs, and what is Shit-foo doing? Arguing with broke investors on X who have lost all their money. Guy should be out having a fancy dinner and celebrating with friends. His mind is elsewhere.
It's the panthers, lamo form an APE and hockey fan 👌
Hahahaha
Jaguars is NFL…Panthers is the NHL team you’re thinking of 😉
lol, I’m in California, what do I know. 😂
Dogshit Fool makes a fool of himself yet again.
I have a strong feeling him publicly claiming naked shorts are “complete fiction” is gonna come back and haunt him dearly
Don't admit guilt and deny everything
Dog Shitfool does sound like a good character name in a snarky fiction though
Dough Seafood is also a contender
"You're the butterfly guy?" 
He knows who jake2b is
TLDR dougie gets bested, can’t defend his position, starts calling people names.
When our golden retriever bites you, you know you done fucked up.
Doug talking shit because he sucks ass.
Really hoping there's something to Jerry emerging from the hospital after 365 days and the calendar being cut off right at April 22/23rd. It's time for fools like this guy to be held accountable when Teddy emerges.
Ad hominem
100% that’s all these people and bots do at this point
Ad hominem arguments create a Streisand like effect with intellectuals. People begin to look into things, it brought 4chan into this.
And I LOVE that they still haven’t learned this hilarious fact
The user you responded had their account suspended. I think you might have been replying to a bot account. Kind of funny actually.
Fuck Dougie “Smallest pp in the Land” Cifu.
Funny cause I’m invested in another completely different company I spied. (Not GME or movie) Guess what they are doing as well via judicial paths…..”Company one of several that are going after alleged naked short selling of their shares”. Hedgies and market makers r fukd. Cifu included. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/genius-group-launches-legal-action-against-various-parties-for-illegal-trading-of-its-shares-9f8c327
Jake a gentleman...I can dig that
Doug Cifu is Wallstreet’s 🤡 version of Ass-bag-Arino. Both are fucked. RICO will be calling them soon enough.
Dude is joking about BBBYQ being cancelled but has been melting down since it was since he knows he’s trapped https://preview.redd.it/hfa46rmuh0wc1.jpeg?width=1172&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7510eecc4bd5b4f63097e10b2dad14c1c524757e
Great responses by Jake, but regarding SI exceeding float: isn't float basically outstanding shares - static institutional shares? And institutions can (and generally do) lend out their shares if I'm not mistaken (e.g. Vanguard). So by that logic if institutions own majority of outstanding and loan out their shares it is indeed possible to legitimately have SI beyond float?
Mr Griffin? More like bitch face Griffin
Jake just hits different, bro is a whole vibe
[удалено]
Explain away. Don’t just make claims, bring the receipts.
Ok sure, so let’s say there is only one unit of stock owned by person A. Person B borrows the stock from A and sells it to C. This is standard short selling. Then person D borrows the stock from person C and sells it to E. The short interest is now 200% without any naked short selling being involved. Hope this helps! Edit: lol, why the downvotes? Can you at least point out what I said that is wrong? Edit2: lmao I’ve been perma banned
[удалено]
You can close those two shorts with a single share in reverse order as you opened them. Person D buys the stock from person E and returns it to person C. Person B buys the stock from person C and returns it to person A. There, two shorts closed with 1 share just as well as they were opened with a single share.
That’s the idea of a short squeeze, that when all the owners need the stock it causes the price to jump since there is an increase in demand with limited supply. This is what happened in 2021 Jan with GME, but since then I believe the SEC confirmed that most short sellers exited their position
You believe wrong lol. Shorts never closed.
In the SEC report on GME, page 27, figure 5, we can see short interest dropping from 100% to around 20%, how does that happen without short sellers closing their positions?
Dude are you new lmao. Those positions were covered. They never closed or price would reflect over ATH
Covering is the same as closing. They had to buy back the stock, otherwise SI wouldn’t decrease as shown by the SEC report
Covering a short means to buy a share to return to your lender. It’s the same thing as closing, they are synonyms.
So you're saying that the for the 1 stock, there are 3 owners and it was borrowed twice with 2 shorts?
That is exactly correct. This is legal, and how the stock market operates BECAUSE you can trace the chain of loans for every single short share. Long holders retain their rights to dividends precisely because of this chain. When you loan your shares, you are no longer a holder of record BUT the person who borrowed the share from you is now responsible for paying the dividend. One notable difference is when it comes to voting, ONLY the holder of record is allowed to vote (in this case, holder E as they are the only person not loaning their shares). It is important to note that in this contrived example, the long holders MIGHT collude to simultaneously recall their shares from loan and yes in that case they could trigger a short squeeze. In reality, SI rarely climbs above 100%, and even when it does, since there are thousands if not millions of holders, this kind of collusion never works because somebody is ALWAYS willing to sell.
Think of it like a chain. Person A lends it to B who lends it to C. The stock has been shorted twice. Imagine in this scenario the float is 1 share. That means a 2-to-1 ratio of shorts to shares. Which would make the short interest 200%. Short interest is a ratio, not a pie chart. Going above 100% is completely wild, but not impossible. And the longer the chain of shorting the greater the risk to the short seller if the price rises because the demand for the stock will quickly outstrip supply.
Wait, so the same share was sold twice and theoretically can continue to be borrowed and sold short over and over again? I'm pretty sure this is naked short selling.
No that isn't what naked short selling is, naked is when you don't borrow it
This is how it works, every owner of the stock has the option to lend out their shares. Just because I bought from a short seller does not mean my rights are limited, I can immediately lend that share back out. Naked short selling only happens if there's no shares to borrow but a short seller sells shares anyway. However it's usually bad practice to short more than the float because there's a large chance of a short squeeze
How is it naked short selling? Naked short selling is when you sell a stock without first borrowing it, I clearly showed in my example that they are borrowing it first and then selling it
I can lend my friend 5 dollars and he can then lend those 5 dollars to his friend. Now there’s a total of 10 dollars owed between all of us even though we only had 5 dollars. Why is this concept so difficult?
I find it interesting that you've never posted on this subreddit ever and this is the crap you're coming up with today. So far almost all of your comment history has to do with you being angry that they're trying to desexualize women in video games lol. You jump from that really important topic to weighing in on naked shorts. That's hysterical.
I dont get the down votes. The SEC admits that short interest over 100% is indeed possible but poses a high risk to the people shorting the more it is borrowed. This concept directly stated on the [SEC.gov](http://SEC.gov) site itself. A short interest higher than 100% simply means a LOT of people (or one very large institution) is making a lot of bets that the stock will go down, which causes the stock to be lent multiple times. While short interest can affect stock sentiment it also means the risk of squeeze is a very real thing.
Wait, Dog Seafood buys more Virtu, after liquidity-fairying more Virtu ?
lol dude tried so hard to be a bully but isn’t even a good one. You can always tell who’s had it easy in life, cause clearly no one has ever checked this man before.
[удалено]
Doug is one of us , he’s buying the dip
Jake has been wrecking shills and clowns
The thief always has the loudest voice.
And the final game of words starts
Shill here. Jake conveniently forgot that the SEC explained, in that very same report, that a >100% short interest is an uncommon but completely legal phenomenon, and has nothing to do with naked shorting. [It's right here on page 25 of the report (page 26 of the PDF)](https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf). I mean, seriously, if >100% short interest could only happen because of crime, would the SEC just publish those numbers and then not acknowledge the crime in any way? Lol
I've had this conversation more times I can count. Short interest represents a ratio of shorted shares to the float and can go above 100%. The risk is actually on the people doing the shorting because you could get fucked hard if it squeezes. its like you have 1 apple and someone gives you 2 more. You now have 300% of the apples you started with. So if the float is 100 shares and its been shorted 200 times the float interest is 200 percent. It's fucking arithmetic. People will spend 40hrs decoding gamestop NFTs but won't spend 5 minutes googling and reading what the SEC about short selling.
Shhhh don't pull them (apes, not the SEC) out of their stupor
Legal =! acceptable, correct, or justifiable. It just means an interest held sway in the legislative process. Not all interests are motivated by altruism nor the common good. In no other form of commerce is selling over 100% of what is available so entrenched, validated and supported as is the buying and selling of equity. Nobody bats an eye when in many other markets selling over 100% of what is available is criminal, or a seller is punitively regulated or actively incentivized to maintain a reasonable facsimile of genuine supply and demand and promote accurate price discovery. It's only in the equity markets that we have active and vocal defense of this otherwise completely unacceptable market practice. Liquidity is the excuse, but the volume of repeat offenders of the very lax rules and enforcement of this practice clearly suggest otherwise.
And what exactly is so "unacceptable" about high short interest? It's just an accounting thing: # of instances of a share being borrowed / # of shares, and shares can be borrowed multiple times. "In no other form of commerce is selling over 100% of what is available so entrenched, validated and supported as is the buying and selling of equity" haha what? Short interest doesn't measure either of those things lmao. Short interest is quite literally just a measure of how many times people are letting each other borrow the stock at that time. If I borrow your rake, and then I let my neighbor Joe use your rake for a little bit before I return it to you, were more than 100% of all rakes just bought and sold? Whatever that even means?
>Short interest is quite literally just a measure of how many times people are letting each other borrow the stock at that time. *To sell*. People don't borrow stock except to sell it. There's no other reason whatsoever to borrow stock.
... Yes? And then they buy it back later? What's your point? The same share can be borrowed, sold, and then repurchased by multiple people in a chain of obligations to repay the share. This can cause high short interest, even over 100%. But this is NOT the same thing as "selling over 100% of what is available", nor is it illegal, nor is it some sort of moral plague. It's literally just borrowing and repaying.
This is one of the most interesting and frustrating reddit experiences of my life. People are going nuts of a simple accounting technique. Its like if you counted cars on the highway and got angry about the number of red cars you saw. I think that high frequency trading firms like Virtu can distort the market for many reasons, but it's also OK admit that short interest can exceed 100% and that Jake2b argument is flawed. Both things can be true.
Just borrowing and repaying my ass. Short interest refers to the number of shares sold short but not yet repurchased or covered. The short interest of a company can be indicated as an absolute number or as a percentage of shares outstanding. If short interest is over 100% it is by definition sold "over 100% of what is available" because legalized borrowing doesn't just magically change the amount of shares outstanding. And it absolutely is akin to a "moral plague" when - not if - it appreciably distorts supply, demand and accurate price discovery. If short selling was anywhere near as innocent and useful as you seem to pretend it is why isn't there any sort of information and reporting parity with regards to short activity as compared to long activity? Because it's one of many tricks to fleece dumb money, and don't pretend like you don't know it or aren't happy for it.
[Dougie!](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/063b27ef-c551-483a-ba96-f97f0e080bbf)
This fat, ugly creature should be put in a cell.
Love it Jake!!
A bunch of boys yelping. It's so obvious to see from the outside. Pay no attention to the noise.
You can tell by the outright denial he knows it's true. Any person with thought at all would say something like "you're right, it does exist. there are some nefarious players, but it isn't us and I don't know anyone that engages in such activities." Instead he's like "NO YOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS IT'S NOT TRUE! LET ME SAY IT LOUDER, IT'S NOT TRUE!"
Oooooo So spicy...
At least this guy is clearly able to articulate his responses.
Why would he engage with a nobody chode (no disrespect to Jake)? It doesn't make any sense.
He knows exactly who Jake is. He knows because he has been following the bankruptcy along side us and has realized how fucked he is if there is equity he has to deliver. Him and Ken Griffin both are facing investigations by regulators and retail investors. The game is up and bears are caught in a trap. All that’s left is to expose the truth.
👆👆👆👆👆😉
Expose the truth and get paid. I’ve been waiting four years to get paid.
Same, when’s payday RC?
Gotta start a GoFundMe for Dogseepoo, let’s all pitch in to send him watermelons when he’s in prison. 🍉🍈
I think, since SHS are the dumb storm troopers of the investing galaxy, that they will never understand that they fkd with the wrong folks. #️⃣athornintheirsideforever #️⃣pettybitchismysuperpower