Ok - I've found there's confusion everywhere (in the industry and online) about how all of this will work. The problem is that it's a unique combination of a dividend and a split, and it actually has the characteristics of both.
Part of the confusion is that there are standard dividend dates as part of the corporate action and announcement (record date, pay date, ex date) similar to a dividend. However, most of that doesn't make sense in the context of a split.
From a trading perspective this will look just like a split. If you own 100 shares of GME at the end of the day on July 21, you will own 400 shares when you wake up on July 22 (assuming your broker correctly processes this action as a split). The price will drop accordingly.
As the press release explains, GME will trade on a split-adjusted basis on July 22 (the ex-dividend date in the corporate action). If it's trading at $200 on July 21, it will trade at $50 on July 22. The value of your position will not change, despite receiving more shares.
As far as short sellers are concerned, the borrower of the shares is responsible for paying dividends to lenders - the borrower will receive the share dividend, and be obligated to return the new share amount. Note that the dollar value of what they are borrowing doesn't change.
I will continue to look into what might happen given the high level of short interest - it's certainly a unique situation, which is why a lot of folks are confused. I'll add on to this thread as I learn more.
Adding further explanation on how this works for short sellers, as per the MSLA that is used as boilerplate for most brokers. The borrower's obligation changes in terms of shares, but not in terms of value.
h/t to @goldielips1 who's been all over this over on Superstonk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The House Financial Services Committee released a 183 page report on what the events of early 2021 exposed in terms of market weaknesses, conflicted business models, and the various problems exposed by retail interest. I haven't read it yet, but will send out thoughts when I do.
Wow - moving those names to PCO was extremely effective in generating sell pressure and reducing collateral requirements.
As #WeTheInvestors have explained to the SEC and Congress, gamification is not the real issue here. The issue is a completely broken business model that puts brokers' interests at odds with their customers'.
Today is a big day in market structure. A day that a lot of us have been working towards for many years. The SEC Chair is going to announce fundamental changes to our markets – centered around PFOF/off-exchange trading, exchange access fees, best execution & the min tick size.
Another thing you’re going to hear a lot of today – push back from firms who profit from the status quo. The hypocrisy of these firms is stunning – most pushed hard for these same changes for many years – but changed their tune when they started profiting off the back of retail.
You know Citadel was for banning PFOF, but you prob didn’t know that Virtu and Doug Cifu were huge supporters of efforts from 2014-2017 to push for such market structure changes. They paid me to advocate for these changes. Then something changed when they bought KCG.
As discussed on our space call last week, SEC is considering some significant changes to market structure, including tick size & access fee reforms. However, most importantly, they're trying to figure out what to do with the current system that sends retail orders to wholesalers.
You know if Citadel and Virtu are pushing back against an order-by-order best execution standard, that it's the right way to go. I believe strongly this is a critical piece to any reforms.
So what about this idea of price improvement auctions for retail orders?
I think these are a bad idea. Once again, we'd be adding complexity on top of complexity, and needlessly so. We already have this in the options market, and the options market is a complete and total mess. We should not be looking to imitate the options market.
This video series from the SEC is really just awful. The SEC is insulting the very investors it's supposed to be protecting and educating. But it's worse than that! For example, one of the videos is about margin investing.
They portray the retail investor (the same one who got pied in the face over his interest in "meme" stocks) as an idiot, buying stocks with a loan despite not knowing what that means. But the SEC is missing the point - it's the broker who allows their clients to buy on margin.
Instead of calling out brokers with completely conflicted business models who put trick clients into signing up for margin accounts, this video calls retail investors idiots. WTF SEC?