I remember the days when $GME took off in January, it faced a negative % SI change and people thought the stock was being covered. But it wasn't the case and doubt snowballed the price action with massive selling movement.
(Part 2)
$AMC presents shows a similar pattern with a substantial drop of the SI with more shares being returned but the value of share on loans also spiking.
In laymen's terms, they have doubled down on shorts just like I said previously with the OCC notice.
(Part 3) The inflated OI in the option chains are increasing - suggesting short sellers are placing hedges, hoping to change the price movement and also acting as a "spoof" of the SI presented on Ortex. It is not 100% conclusive but it is likely the thesis.
(Part 4) The bottom of this is: They haven't covered.
I shall hold until I can bust my kitten nut with hookers and cocaine on Tendies' Day.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Based on the data reported to S3, there was a return of 1.4M shorted shares this week (1.6% of the total 88.2M shares sold short).
(Part 2) They covered 1.4M shorted shares while returning another 27.6M that they had borrowed for the sake of shorting but it was likely to be an awful idea due to risk exposure.
Now, we have an increasing amount of institutions prohibiting short selling.
(Part 3) If short sellers only covered 1.6% - the share price went up roughly 86%. If we're tracking this proportionally with the price increase per percentage point of SI covered going forward...
(Part 2) This is a phenomenon that is indicative that these highly shorted securities are extremely hazardous, based on risk assessment - requiring an increasing collateral requirement to maintain these shorts as potential losses are very high - if not guaranteed.
When people are criticizing @BAMinvestor (a pioneer of behavioral analysis of the Markets - spent countless years on refining his field specialization - having a solid line of scholarly-based credibility)...
(Part 2) ...just because his PREDICTION analysis model was underperforming today.
Keyword is "prediction". His algorithmic model is based on quantitative data to let him conduct some advanced analysis which has been reliable and accurate many times over.
(Part 3) More accurate than the dedicated services I rely on or Fidelity's.
Predicting with a 80-90% accuracy on zones of strength and weaknesses for $AMC within a 10-min window is impressive.
(Part 1) There is a sheer difference between being rich and being wealthy.
Giving credit to @profgalloway - someone who I greatly admire with his scholarly-based seminars and educated speeches.
(Part 2) We have many millionaires wasting a fortune to keep up with various expenses they cannot afford - such as paying mortgages on several properties, insurance / maintenance / loans on luxurious cars, sending kids to private schools, expensive healthcare bills...
(Part 3) ...paying alimony to your exes - They spend all of their reserve, if not most of it.
These types of rich millionaires are actually poor.
Lots of apes & cats (retail and institutional investors) have done their due diligence that something has never seen before with $AMC. There is speculation that we're sitting with billions of synthetic shares with fabulous analysis (which is very very likely).
(Part 2)
We have disparity of trading volume but we cannot prove there is existence of synthetic shares.
Fact is, @CEOAdam must speak within legal boundaries, being a public figure and representative of a company and cannot speak of a topic without irrefutable proof.
(Part 3)
If we believe we are sitting with billions of synthetic shares and short sellers STILL using naked shorting, the current dilution of share value is barely a tiny droplet of water in a bucket. What's 10M more? We're eating those up like candy with the price movement.