Gamestop

Corbic

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
10,934
Location
Desert Oasis
More like taking an insurance policy on your neighbors house then going on the news to tell BLM / ANTIFA they are a pointy hat racist so you definitely should burn it down. Then use the insurance policy to buy the land after the smoke settles.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
That's exactly it.
 

Tezz500

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Established Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
13,684
Location
Home for the Mentally Retarded
29ef16b68438b6f6a057e6e3a2708022.jpg
 

quad

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
8,073
Location
Detroit
More like taking an insurance policy on your neighbors house then going on the news to tell BLM / ANTIFA they are a pointy hat racist so you definitely should burn it down. Then use the insurance policy to buy the land after the smoke settles.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
And what about the neighbor's own policy lol?!
 

Pribilof

Life's Better @ Elevation
Established Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
1,156
Location
Denver, CO
Firms have plenty of stocks on restricted lists. It's not illegal. When I was at UBS they wouldn't let anyone buy Canopy Growth or any other company involved in cannabis (except SMG). Highly volatile stocks always get tightened margin requirements or are marked as non-marginable. Nothing about this is out of the ordinary other than the boiler room antics of r/WallStreetBets.
 

Rb0891

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
3,900
Location
Indiana
Firms have plenty of stocks on restricted lists. It's not illegal. When I was at UBS they wouldn't let anyone buy Canopy Growth or any other company involved in cannabis (except SMG). Highly volatile stocks always get tightened margin requirements or are marked as non-marginable. Nothing about this is out of the ordinary other than the boiler room antics of r/WallStreetBets.
I get that, but what of the original sin of shorting over 100% of the stock? And it appears nakedly at that?
 

Corbic

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
10,934
Location
Desert Oasis
I get that, but what of the original sin of shorting over 100% of the stock? And it appears nakedly at that?
139% over short and even after the $2 billion bailout, they continued to buy short at borrow rate of 23.6%...
 

Pribilof

Life's Better @ Elevation
Established Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
1,156
Location
Denver, CO
I get that, but what of the original sin of shorting over 100% of the stock? And it appears nakedly at that?

Yes, a Stock Can Have Short Interest Over 100% -- Here's How | The Motley Fool

However, even without a naked short sale, it's theoretically possible for short interest to exceed 100%. The reason has to do with the nature of the short-sale transaction itself.

As an example, take a situation involving four investors. Annie owns shares of GameStop, and Annie and her broker have an agreement that allows the broker to lend Annie's shares to short-sellers. It lends them to Bob, who subsequently sells those borrowed shares short in hopes that GameStop's share price will fall.

An investor named Chris ends up buying those borrowed shares from Bob. However, Chris has no way of knowing that those shares have been borrowed from Annie. To Chris, they're just like any other shares.


More importantly, if Chris has the same kind of agreement, then Chris's broker can lend out those shares to yet another investor. Diane, another GameStop bear, can borrow those shares and sell them short.

In this example, the same shares end up getting borrowed and sold twice. The short interest volume these transactions add to the total is twice the number of shares actually involved. You can therefore see that if this happened throughout the market, total short interest would eventually exceed the number of shares outstanding and approach 200%.


SEC Reg SHO part 2
Key Points About Regulation SHO

ETA: You probably also have synthetic shorts on some of these stocks. Covering those options exacerbates the problem.
 

598

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,494
Location
Frankfort IL
If that second claim is true....they will be in prison.
No way. No one went to jail after the housing collapse, and this is small ball money. SEC might fine them 100 million after they make a billion, but the only ones that could go to jail are the little guys talking about GME going to $1000 if they sell out before that price, and the guys that provided a transparent forum for discussion, because we are no longer a country of free speech. Harvard Grads are pretty much always above going to the pokie.
 

Rb0891

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
3,900
Location
Indiana
Yes, a Stock Can Have Short Interest Over 100% -- Here's How | The Motley Fool
My point was should, rather than can...

I remember a time back when I was told derivatives were simply the greatest way to spread risk. That worked out great...

Financial actions and instruments have become so complex as to not be grounded into any reality which anyone can understand. And many of the people make fun of crypto...



SEC Reg SHO part 2
Key Points About Regulation SHO

ETA: You probably also have synthetic shorts on some of these stocks. Covering those options exacerbates the problem.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top