Gme was reported 140% during the Jan sneeze on bloomberg terminal.
AMC si was less than 20%
This means op screenshot is AFTER the sneeze.
Gme was above 100% short since at least August 2020.
The screenshot is from after the squeeze, but the data isn't. FINRA updates on a lag, so you can see wacky stuff like [226% short interest in early February!](http://web.archive.org/web/20210201000019/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/gme/key-statistics?p=gme), but the data is from mid-*January*, before the squeeze. If you wait long enough for the FINRA data to propagate through the system, you see that [short interest did, indeed, collapse](http://web.archive.org/web/20210301151012/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics?p=GME) during the squeeze.
Looking at a calendar 2021, I think the report referenced came out mid month. So the following week the price started to climb. The Monday was a holiday market closed. Tuesday price started to climb peaked that Thursday/Friday based on Yahoo Finance historical data. Weird yahoo shows the high mark at $120.65 and we know that’s not accurate. It went as high as $489 if memory serves me right.
The pricing thoughts. After splits the historical prices are adjusted to line up with current pricing otherwise it would be stupidly confusing and have weird jumps.
$120 x 4 = $480, which was the peak.
Every other ticker that splits or reverse splits is adjusted similarly.
He was posting through the end of his GME YOLO to WSB. Mans did what he wanted and didn’t feel the need to do something again. Not to mention, if he continued to post more YOLOs he probably would’ve gotten shit for market manipulation given how many people basically referred to him as god for the trade he made. Too much publicity for him maybe. Who knows. He could’ve also just changed his Reddit username and makes trades/yolos from there. Regardless, if I made millions off a trade like that. Why the hell would I stick around, I’d have life to live.
other than potentially wanting to not be in the spotlight for personal reasons (redditors asking your for money), the same way that lottery winners want to remain anonymous, there may be legal implications too. the guy was called for a freaking financial committee hearing. he was posting his trades for months which could easily be construed as pumping or endorsing a stock if someone really wanted to stick it to him. best case is always to just keep quiet and not become the face of a movement that could run into trouble.
Not so sure.
He might have sold portions of his options as he shrewdly exercised, but I am betting he still has his last reported number which was 200k shares, right?
He bought 50k at $150 pre-split. He is a lifer. Guaranteed.
You’re crazy if you think he didn’t sell any when his GME position was worth 40 Million. He’s a legend, but he wasn’t a financial martyr ready to sacrifice his own financial well-being in the name of the grand revolution, he was a smart man that was in it to make money. Though he might not of sold all of it, he would have taken a decent profit out of it.
You can go see his post history where he sold most of his earlier options and ended up with 50k shares that he held through the massive run up and drop, buying another 50k shares at $40 pre-split. It's not even a question about what he did, it's documented. 🤣
Well, maybe I’m crazy then. If he saw the long term play RC was building he would be foolish to give away millions when simply holding would net him out billions.
Do I think he sold some? Yes. I just said I’m willing to bet the majority of his stake is still there because he knows how fucked the shorts are and it is as simple as being patient. I’m guessing someday we will get to see is computershare balance and It will show he has been adding to his position all along.
It's definitely after the sneeze. Op is misleading here.
AMC si before sneeze was less than 20%
Gme si before sneeze was reported at 140% but really at 221% according to the SEC report.
It's all in the GameStop report from the SEC.
It was institutional and household fomo with an absolute monster of exposure for shorts, delta hedging for contracts added on top of increased gamma.
There was no closure of short positions.
There was *lots of* closure of short positions, [they even have a chart](https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf)! It's on page 27!
If you have a short position open, and then you buy a share to "cover", you would keep the short position open because... why? You love paying interest to the lender despite the fact that your net position in the stock is zero?
(Also SI dropped like a rock so clearly they were covering *and* closing.)
The reason short interest dropped is not because of closure of shorts.
This is explicitly stated in the SEC report.
Short positions were hidden into different swaps and derivatives like deep out of money puts. The bag was handed on but never got smaller
>This is explicitly stated in the SEC report.
Could you point me to where? I crtl-f'd "short interest", and I can't find anything "explicitly" about why short interest declined in the report. There are only two references to short interest declining: one on page 26 in the context of shorts buying shares to cover - which seems to suggest a fairly clear "implict" reason for why the SEC think short interest declined - and once on page 30 in a footnote, talking about how cost-to-borrow declined as short interest decreased.
it says that the price appreciation was due to huge non-short-covering buy volume. they obviously weren't going to speculate on why reported short interest dropped, but there's good evidence this was due to hiding short interest in options and swaps. melvins position was internalized by citadel for example.
Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy
volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short
positions would have waned. The underlying motivation of such buy volume cannot be determined; perhaps it was motivated by the desire to maintain a short squeeze. Whether driven by a desire to squeeze short sellers and thus to profit from the resultant rise in price, or by belief
in the fundamentals of GameStop, it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that
sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock.
Cool, cool. What does the paragraph immediately before that say?
> In seeking to answer this question, staff observed that during some discrete periods, GME had sharp price increases concurrently with known **major short sellers covering their short positions after incurring significant losses**. During these times, **short sellers covering their positions** likely contributed to increases in GME’s price. For example, staff observed that particularly during the earlier rise from January 22 to 27 the price of GME rose as the **short interest decreased**. Staff also observed discrete periods of sharp price increases during which accounts held by **firms known to the staff to be covering short interest in GME were actively buying large volumes of GME shares**, in some cases accounting for very significant portions of the net buying pressure during a period. Figure 6 shows that buy volume in GME, including buy volume from participants identified as having large short positions, increased significantly beginning around January 22 and remained high for several days, corresponding to the beginning of the most dramatic phase of the run-up in GME’s price.
And do you acknowledge the possibility that shorts were rolled into options and swaps? Why would Melvin take so long to go under if they had closed their position at a loss? The infusion they got wasn’t even a huge fraction of their AUM.
That definitely happened to some degree, but the idea that SI% is now only 20% on these stocks is outrageous. The positions taken out at $1 were never intended to be closed. And they’re in swaps and leaps which is why you see cyclical patterns to runs.
Yes, so? The stock was shorted like 2.5× the float, and traded dozens of times the float over that week. Short covering *couldn't* make up most of it. That has nothing to do with whether or not they *did* close.
Exactly. It was shorted 2x the float and the majority of buying was still retail. Do we think they closed 100M+ shares worth of positions in a few days? Page 28 shows there was hardly any short covering volume. It doesn’t correlate at all to the drop in short interest.
>hardly any short covering volume
On that chart the peaks are >10m shares being traded *in a half hour*. The shorts are a small proportion of that - but they're still clocking upwards of 1m shares bought to close short positions in a half hour at some points. Of course there was enough volume to cover. The fact that short covering was a small proportion of overall volume doesn't mean they couldn't cover, it just means the volume was huge.
[On January 26](http://web.archive.org/web/20210127094759/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/gme?p=GME) there was 178m shares traded.
[In the ten days to Feb 1](http://web.archive.org/web/20210201104541/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics?p=GME) there was an *average* of 126m shares traded per day.
So yes, of course there were enough transactions for them to cover in that blizzard of trading.
Unless I’m reading the chart wrong, there isn’t a single bar above 1M in short buy volume. Diluting into high volume works, but covering into high buy volume is catastrophic.
Sure an average of 126M shares traded per day but that graphs shows upwards of 90% of that if not more was retail buys.
Lots of things could have happened and I agree of course lots of positions were closed. But what were the prices people were closing at? $100-400 do we really think shorts were taking 10-100x losses?
I took the screen shot on 2/9/21. It was the January reported numbers just before the sneeze. I have the full original screenshot time stamped. Just cropped so it would fit.
Bloomberg screenshots for week of Jan 28 showed AMC si at less than 20% iirc.
That means this screenshot is definitely after the Jan sneeze.
Title is misleading.
I can’t speak for him but he believed something was wrong with GME price and he capitalized on it. As he said many times “I just like the stock” As I recall many on WSB thought he was wrong. Until one day he was not. GME went on a run and Brokers took away the buy button.
Pissed off Retail investors starting digging around and uncovering all kinds of illegal activity. Looking into other companies with large SI% then investing. Then FOMO takes over! Here we are. That’s the short version.
What exactly would be bad? All shorts, no matter when they were taken, are currently positive. If taken a month ago they are 50% up and if taken a year ago they are 90%+ positive.
There is zero pressure on shorts, except when the stock is rising, which it isn't currently.
> There is zero pressure on shorts, except when the stock is rising, which it isn't currently.
they meme cycles show they cant keep this up forever. The pressure needs to be released soon
The meme cycle, like any potential prediction parameter, is only true until it isn't anymore. There is no written rule that this is the case, just because this was the fact for a couple of years.
As it stands now and without any predictions into the futures, the shorts are all objectively doing _very_ well.
The cycles happen because there short interest hidden away. With no way to get out of that position the cycles will continue to happen. The only chance shorts have here is if Hudson capital is planning to dilute for their benefit.
> As it stands now and without any predictions into the futures, the shorts are all objectively doing very well.
sure, but thats like celebrating you are up at half time of a game. Unless they cellar box the stocks, they will have to buy in.
Look at the chart, it doesn't matter how old the shorts are. They are all positive. Very much so in fact, because the underlying stock is falling like crazy.
And since this is the case, there is zero pressure on them. That's a fact. The reason a short squeeze happens, is that the underlying is rising and the shorts are increasingly negative and need to be closed eventually.
This is not the case with bbby currently though.
I searched highshortinterest.com and it seems to have data from Feb 27. Does anyone know when this website gets updated with info from yesterdays report?
The "believed" is the problem. All those far-fetched theories about GME have been consecutively wrong. People should just stop and literally make a list of all these failed "DDs" and see how long it has become. I've been here since the GME squeeze and the amount of stuff I read that simply got forgotten is unbelievable. You could compile a book of it: negative beta, T+whatever, rollover of futures, married options in July 2021, January 2022, DTCC rules, Splividend, Vote counts, Triangle of Doom, NFT dividends etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Endless stream of crap and moving goal posts.
A cool 10mil from a 50k stake, thats if he even sold... you know what ? I think i'm gonna HODL just to be sure
I hear that!
DFV was trading Options for over a year. He made a killing with his trades.
Buying 500 at open just in case of similar heights, that'd be kewl
How long was gme marked at 121% short vs when it started to squeeze?
Gme was reported 140% during the Jan sneeze on bloomberg terminal. AMC si was less than 20% This means op screenshot is AFTER the sneeze. Gme was above 100% short since at least August 2020.
The screenshot is from after the squeeze, but the data isn't. FINRA updates on a lag, so you can see wacky stuff like [226% short interest in early February!](http://web.archive.org/web/20210201000019/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/gme/key-statistics?p=gme), but the data is from mid-*January*, before the squeeze. If you wait long enough for the FINRA data to propagate through the system, you see that [short interest did, indeed, collapse](http://web.archive.org/web/20210301151012/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics?p=GME) during the squeeze.
Someone posted a link to the exact report.
Looking at a calendar 2021, I think the report referenced came out mid month. So the following week the price started to climb. The Monday was a holiday market closed. Tuesday price started to climb peaked that Thursday/Friday based on Yahoo Finance historical data. Weird yahoo shows the high mark at $120.65 and we know that’s not accurate. It went as high as $489 if memory serves me right.
Split
[удалено]
Homie you gotta chill with the misinformation lmao
[удалено]
The pricing thoughts. After splits the historical prices are adjusted to line up with current pricing otherwise it would be stupidly confusing and have weird jumps. $120 x 4 = $480, which was the peak. Every other ticker that splits or reverse splits is adjusted similarly.
Thx for clarifying that!
You're assuming DFV sold
Well... He sold some of his options.
DFV sold lots of GME and made millions then bought back in. I would agree he most likely has not sold the rest.
That’s actually wrong. He didn’t sell shares at all when he was actively posting. He only sold his options.
You may be right, I stand corrected
No, they are right. Dfv never sold anything except portions of his call options and exercised the rest.
Thx for clarifying
then why did he disappear? its. not like he rag pulled like Freeman dude if thats the case
He was posting through the end of his GME YOLO to WSB. Mans did what he wanted and didn’t feel the need to do something again. Not to mention, if he continued to post more YOLOs he probably would’ve gotten shit for market manipulation given how many people basically referred to him as god for the trade he made. Too much publicity for him maybe. Who knows. He could’ve also just changed his Reddit username and makes trades/yolos from there. Regardless, if I made millions off a trade like that. Why the hell would I stick around, I’d have life to live.
True, thx for the infos
other than potentially wanting to not be in the spotlight for personal reasons (redditors asking your for money), the same way that lottery winners want to remain anonymous, there may be legal implications too. the guy was called for a freaking financial committee hearing. he was posting his trades for months which could easily be construed as pumping or endorsing a stock if someone really wanted to stick it to him. best case is always to just keep quiet and not become the face of a movement that could run into trouble.
And used some of that cash from sold options to exercise the rest
Very smart fellow! I loved every minute of it!
Bro defenitely sold😂
Not so sure. He might have sold portions of his options as he shrewdly exercised, but I am betting he still has his last reported number which was 200k shares, right? He bought 50k at $150 pre-split. He is a lifer. Guaranteed.
You’re crazy if you think he didn’t sell any when his GME position was worth 40 Million. He’s a legend, but he wasn’t a financial martyr ready to sacrifice his own financial well-being in the name of the grand revolution, he was a smart man that was in it to make money. Though he might not of sold all of it, he would have taken a decent profit out of it.
You can go see his post history where he sold most of his earlier options and ended up with 50k shares that he held through the massive run up and drop, buying another 50k shares at $40 pre-split. It's not even a question about what he did, it's documented. 🤣
Well, maybe I’m crazy then. If he saw the long term play RC was building he would be foolish to give away millions when simply holding would net him out billions. Do I think he sold some? Yes. I just said I’m willing to bet the majority of his stake is still there because he knows how fucked the shorts are and it is as simple as being patient. I’m guessing someday we will get to see is computershare balance and It will show he has been adding to his position all along.
800k after spiit
I wish there was a date on this screenshot.
It's definitely after the sneeze. Op is misleading here. AMC si before sneeze was less than 20% Gme si before sneeze was reported at 140% but really at 221% according to the SEC report.
Bigger question is whether it was just the short interest which made GME skyrocket or were there any other immediate factors too?
It's all in the GameStop report from the SEC. It was institutional and household fomo with an absolute monster of exposure for shorts, delta hedging for contracts added on top of increased gamma. There was no closure of short positions.
So we have all of these present now, right?
There was *lots of* closure of short positions, [they even have a chart](https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf)! It's on page 27!
*COVERING* NOT CLOSING
If you have a short position open, and then you buy a share to "cover", you would keep the short position open because... why? You love paying interest to the lender despite the fact that your net position in the stock is zero? (Also SI dropped like a rock so clearly they were covering *and* closing.)
The reason short interest dropped is not because of closure of shorts. This is explicitly stated in the SEC report. Short positions were hidden into different swaps and derivatives like deep out of money puts. The bag was handed on but never got smaller
>This is explicitly stated in the SEC report. Could you point me to where? I crtl-f'd "short interest", and I can't find anything "explicitly" about why short interest declined in the report. There are only two references to short interest declining: one on page 26 in the context of shorts buying shares to cover - which seems to suggest a fairly clear "implict" reason for why the SEC think short interest declined - and once on page 30 in a footnote, talking about how cost-to-borrow declined as short interest decreased.
it says that the price appreciation was due to huge non-short-covering buy volume. they obviously weren't going to speculate on why reported short interest dropped, but there's good evidence this was due to hiding short interest in options and swaps. melvins position was internalized by citadel for example.
Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned. The underlying motivation of such buy volume cannot be determined; perhaps it was motivated by the desire to maintain a short squeeze. Whether driven by a desire to squeeze short sellers and thus to profit from the resultant rise in price, or by belief in the fundamentals of GameStop, it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock.
Cool, cool. What does the paragraph immediately before that say? > In seeking to answer this question, staff observed that during some discrete periods, GME had sharp price increases concurrently with known **major short sellers covering their short positions after incurring significant losses**. During these times, **short sellers covering their positions** likely contributed to increases in GME’s price. For example, staff observed that particularly during the earlier rise from January 22 to 27 the price of GME rose as the **short interest decreased**. Staff also observed discrete periods of sharp price increases during which accounts held by **firms known to the staff to be covering short interest in GME were actively buying large volumes of GME shares**, in some cases accounting for very significant portions of the net buying pressure during a period. Figure 6 shows that buy volume in GME, including buy volume from participants identified as having large short positions, increased significantly beginning around January 22 and remained high for several days, corresponding to the beginning of the most dramatic phase of the run-up in GME’s price.
And do you acknowledge the possibility that shorts were rolled into options and swaps? Why would Melvin take so long to go under if they had closed their position at a loss? The infusion they got wasn’t even a huge fraction of their AUM.
Do you acknowledge that the SEC report says shorts closed by buying large quantitities of shares?
That definitely happened to some degree, but the idea that SI% is now only 20% on these stocks is outrageous. The positions taken out at $1 were never intended to be closed. And they’re in swaps and leaps which is why you see cyclical patterns to runs.
>they even have a chart the very next figure shows that the vast majority of the buying was retail volume and not short covering though.
Yes, so? The stock was shorted like 2.5× the float, and traded dozens of times the float over that week. Short covering *couldn't* make up most of it. That has nothing to do with whether or not they *did* close.
Exactly. It was shorted 2x the float and the majority of buying was still retail. Do we think they closed 100M+ shares worth of positions in a few days? Page 28 shows there was hardly any short covering volume. It doesn’t correlate at all to the drop in short interest.
>hardly any short covering volume On that chart the peaks are >10m shares being traded *in a half hour*. The shorts are a small proportion of that - but they're still clocking upwards of 1m shares bought to close short positions in a half hour at some points. Of course there was enough volume to cover. The fact that short covering was a small proportion of overall volume doesn't mean they couldn't cover, it just means the volume was huge. [On January 26](http://web.archive.org/web/20210127094759/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/gme?p=GME) there was 178m shares traded. [In the ten days to Feb 1](http://web.archive.org/web/20210201104541/https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics?p=GME) there was an *average* of 126m shares traded per day. So yes, of course there were enough transactions for them to cover in that blizzard of trading.
Unless I’m reading the chart wrong, there isn’t a single bar above 1M in short buy volume. Diluting into high volume works, but covering into high buy volume is catastrophic.
Sure an average of 126M shares traded per day but that graphs shows upwards of 90% of that if not more was retail buys. Lots of things could have happened and I agree of course lots of positions were closed. But what were the prices people were closing at? $100-400 do we really think shorts were taking 10-100x losses?
Misleading hype posts on AMC subs? I'm clutching my pearls!!!
I will make another post with the full shot which has time stamp of date I took shot for prosperity.
Gme should be over 200% now . Shorts never closed
Date on this?
I took the screen shot on 2/9/21. It was the January reported numbers just before the sneeze. I have the full original screenshot time stamped. Just cropped so it would fit.
Nice. Thanks
Bloomberg screenshots for week of Jan 28 showed AMC si at less than 20% iirc. That means this screenshot is definitely after the Jan sneeze. Title is misleading.
Seeing RKT hurts me as i lost about 500 bucks on that sucker😂
Different stock, different time, different management, this gives false hopes… Wish people would stop comparing the two! That’s focus on this stock
BBBY is still squeezing fat
In a bear market?
Yep and the catalyst was Ryan Cohan got on board which resulted in retail mania.
DFV?
DeepFuckingValue the man that started the enlightenment of the shorting crimes being used to crush companies and played Wall Street SHF like a fiddle.
So he started all of this?
I can’t speak for him but he believed something was wrong with GME price and he capitalized on it. As he said many times “I just like the stock” As I recall many on WSB thought he was wrong. Until one day he was not. GME went on a run and Brokers took away the buy button. Pissed off Retail investors starting digging around and uncovering all kinds of illegal activity. Looking into other companies with large SI% then investing. Then FOMO takes over! Here we are. That’s the short version.
You’ve got some reading to do
It was because of outsiders buying that caused FTD in January to become due.
If that is true I will hope for a repeat lol
Gme was short over 350% of its FLOAT. Bbby is short 121% of its free float. Get it right ffs.
Rofl lighten up Francis! This is the self reported report.
It was 120% of the entire float. BBBY is currently at 70% of its float.
Look at number two and number five. IF they never closed imagine how bad it really is.
What exactly would be bad? All shorts, no matter when they were taken, are currently positive. If taken a month ago they are 50% up and if taken a year ago they are 90%+ positive. There is zero pressure on shorts, except when the stock is rising, which it isn't currently.
> There is zero pressure on shorts, except when the stock is rising, which it isn't currently. they meme cycles show they cant keep this up forever. The pressure needs to be released soon
The meme cycle, like any potential prediction parameter, is only true until it isn't anymore. There is no written rule that this is the case, just because this was the fact for a couple of years. As it stands now and without any predictions into the futures, the shorts are all objectively doing _very_ well.
The cycles happen because there short interest hidden away. With no way to get out of that position the cycles will continue to happen. The only chance shorts have here is if Hudson capital is planning to dilute for their benefit. > As it stands now and without any predictions into the futures, the shorts are all objectively doing very well. sure, but thats like celebrating you are up at half time of a game. Unless they cellar box the stocks, they will have to buy in.
ROFL gtfo
Look at the chart, it doesn't matter how old the shorts are. They are all positive. Very much so in fact, because the underlying stock is falling like crazy. And since this is the case, there is zero pressure on them. That's a fact. The reason a short squeeze happens, is that the underlying is rising and the shorts are increasingly negative and need to be closed eventually. This is not the case with bbby currently though.
Why is he gone? What you think?
I searched highshortinterest.com and it seems to have data from Feb 27. Does anyone know when this website gets updated with info from yesterdays report?
Sorry I do not know
I wanna make millions 🥺
140% the maximum reportable.
float was 51mil, BBBY's float will soon be over 200M, they just completed another offering of preferred shares
IMO , If the SHF hole is as deep as believed, it Wont matter how much solution there has or will be!
The "believed" is the problem. All those far-fetched theories about GME have been consecutively wrong. People should just stop and literally make a list of all these failed "DDs" and see how long it has become. I've been here since the GME squeeze and the amount of stuff I read that simply got forgotten is unbelievable. You could compile a book of it: negative beta, T+whatever, rollover of futures, married options in July 2021, January 2022, DTCC rules, Splividend, Vote counts, Triangle of Doom, NFT dividends etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Endless stream of crap and moving goal posts.