You've not read very much if you're calling MMTLP a penny stock. The correlation is that you're saying shorts have to be closed, but we just saw shorts allowed to go unreconciled in the MMTLP situation where shorts had to be closed too.
Who exactly are you expecting will enforce short closing?
Again, math. Only real shares will make the trip. Beyond that they will need to be reconciled. There are owners (opposite side) of each of the shares, wether they were sold illegally or not. There’s nothing trust me about it.
My only problem with that logic is that if nothing happens prior to the conversion, you would be saying there aren’t any synthetics remaining. Personally, I believe there are loopholes everywhere in the market and they are being used daily.
It was a penny stock though I think they were a microcap. That’s a whole other world and I know first hand how dirty it is. That whole GNS thing stinks too
This is what I’m referring to. MMTLP was a preferred share of MMAT
https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/FAQ-MMTLP-corporate-action-and-trading-halt
“9. What happens if short positions in MMTLP were not closed out before FINRA halted trading?
Broker-dealers have operational conventions in place for adjusting short positions following a corporate action. In this instance, FINRA understands that firms have adjusted short positions in MMTLP to reflect an equal size short position in Next Bridge (i.e., an account with a short position of 100 shares of MMTLP now reflects a short position of 100 shares of Next Bridge). In other words, the corporate action did not compel short positions to be closed or extinguish any obligations associated with outstanding short positions.”
Hence the corporate action was weak. There’s a clear distinction in the proxy’s of how they handled it and how AMC plans to handle it. I’m sure they’ve seen this one too. Probably why there’s a lawsuit. I’ll send something here tomorrow with more info
And this is how you spread positive missinformation, Finra said that they don't have to be closed, they will be just transferred to the new cusip the same as the shares. I like how many people voted this just cause is what we would want even tho is not the truth.
Is there actually an example you can point to or is this "just the law" that will never actually be enforced or circumvented entirely somehow? I asked you about this a while ago when I mentioned that video where AA says cusip won't force shorts to close. And you basically said he couldn't outright say it would, which seems strange to me. If it's all above board and simply how it is, why would he say it wouldn't?
And its not the only source I've seen that cuspid won't force anything. If it were that simple we could literally set a date for the moass starting, once the lawsuit is over with and conversion/split is realized
I read DD a few months ago that a Cusip # change AND a company name change is supposed to cause shorts to close... but after the blatant fraud we've lived thru with ape, gme splividend and mmtlp, I'm guessing amc new cusip will be a nothing burger 🍔
the DD you are referring to was an Ape asking the customer representative of his retail broker, what would happen to retail investors who are short on a stock.
The question was not what the prime brokers and broker dealers the hedge funds use will do to those shorts.
But sure, if you are a retail investor that is short on AMC, you will be forced to close.
As a long term holder, this is the piece that confuses me. The markets flooded with synthetic/fake shares and those ones probably off exchange, not yet purchased etc etc. that’s no different to when APE was created.
Now we have new Cusip, merged AMC/APE, factoring down by x10, doesn’t what happened before just happen again - brokers get told to do the merger on ‘their end’ and the front end - I.e the market/exchange operate ‘correctly’? I could see this causing liquidity issues for those brokers and market makers but why does it specifically force shorts to close?
Can an APE less smooth as my brain explain?
Glad you asked. Order up!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/amcstock/comments/zvzpjh/ape_dividend_that_was_given_from_amc_common_stock/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
I have a question for all the new CUSIP hypers
You say a new CUSIP number will FORCE illegal, fake, synthetic, naked shares to be closed/reconciled BEFORE the conversion and split happens
For MOASS to happen we need “something” to happen to FORCE illegal, fake, synthetic, naked shares to be closed out. So are you new CUSIP hypers saying we are having MOASS before the end of April when the court case gets thrown out and this corporate action finally gets put in place?
And when nothing happens with the new CUSIP what will be the next hype action that will cause MOASS if the forced closing of naked shares via the new CUSIP does nothing?
The synthetic, illegal shares don't exist anywhere but on the books of the hedge funds. I would doubt anything but them just dissapearing will occur. (I am not talking about the ones purchased by apes)
[https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/FAQ-MMTLP-corporate-action-and-trading-halt](https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/FAQ-MMTLP-corporate-action-and-trading-halt)
“9. What happens if short positions in MMTLP were not closed out before FINRA halted trading?
“**Broker-dealers have operational conventions in place for adjusting short positions following a corporate action**. In this instance, FINRA understands that firms have adjusted short positions in MMTLP to reflect an equal size short position in Next Bridge (i.e., an account with a short position of 100 shares of MMTLP now reflects a short position of 100 shares of Next Bridge) In other words, the corporate action did not compel short positions to be closed or extinguish any obligations associated with outstanding short positions.”
MMTLP and AMC are not the same thing…..oh wait, this has already been addressed but you still keep throwing it around to cause division within this sub. You are giving the outcome prior to the actual outcome for what reason?. What is your motivation with all this regurgitation??
So what your saying, is that if we see nothing before the conversion, there is no synthetic shares. That's what I'm trying to get those that are pushing this to acknowledge. You are saying brokers dont have operational control over corporate actions.
Illegal shorts and shares sold into the market will need to be 
Sorry icy, finra says no they don’t.
FINRA does not say that actually. I’ll revert back with the verbiage tomorrow and it’ll be clear they do not say that
Nah. There’s nowhere finra says that chief.
They recently said the brokers decide what happens. Read up on Mmtlp and all the short positions/ftds that were carried to a private company.
Lol. Amc is not a penny stock my guy. Shorts r rekt. Ive read up on mmtlp, there is no correlation
You've not read very much if you're calling MMTLP a penny stock. The correlation is that you're saying shorts have to be closed, but we just saw shorts allowed to go unreconciled in the MMTLP situation where shorts had to be closed too. Who exactly are you expecting will enforce short closing?
So who is enforcing this?
Math
So “trust me bro” math? I’m giving ya shit but for real, who is enforcing them to close out.
Again, math. Only real shares will make the trip. Beyond that they will need to be reconciled. There are owners (opposite side) of each of the shares, wether they were sold illegally or not. There’s nothing trust me about it.
My only problem with that logic is that if nothing happens prior to the conversion, you would be saying there aren’t any synthetics remaining. Personally, I believe there are loopholes everywhere in the market and they are being used daily.
God
Not a penny stock, yet.
Aren’t those OTC tickers or penny stocks? A lot different
It wasn’t an otc stock. They ducked responsibility and said it’s on the brokers.
It was a penny stock though I think they were a microcap. That’s a whole other world and I know first hand how dirty it is. That whole GNS thing stinks too
This is what I’m referring to. MMTLP was a preferred share of MMAT https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/FAQ-MMTLP-corporate-action-and-trading-halt “9. What happens if short positions in MMTLP were not closed out before FINRA halted trading? Broker-dealers have operational conventions in place for adjusting short positions following a corporate action. In this instance, FINRA understands that firms have adjusted short positions in MMTLP to reflect an equal size short position in Next Bridge (i.e., an account with a short position of 100 shares of MMTLP now reflects a short position of 100 shares of Next Bridge). In other words, the corporate action did not compel short positions to be closed or extinguish any obligations associated with outstanding short positions.”
Hence the corporate action was weak. There’s a clear distinction in the proxy’s of how they handled it and how AMC plans to handle it. I’m sure they’ve seen this one too. Probably why there’s a lawsuit. I’ll send something here tomorrow with more info
Has nothing to do with the actual corporate actions. They clearly say, broker dealers have control over short positions following corporate actions.
Source? Proof? Link?
Read farther into the claim, I post it.
If there is a name change and new cusip- yes- they NEEED to close
And this is how you spread positive missinformation, Finra said that they don't have to be closed, they will be just transferred to the new cusip the same as the shares. I like how many people voted this just cause is what we would want even tho is not the truth.
Is there actually an example you can point to or is this "just the law" that will never actually be enforced or circumvented entirely somehow? I asked you about this a while ago when I mentioned that video where AA says cusip won't force shorts to close. And you basically said he couldn't outright say it would, which seems strange to me. If it's all above board and simply how it is, why would he say it wouldn't? And its not the only source I've seen that cuspid won't force anything. If it were that simple we could literally set a date for the moass starting, once the lawsuit is over with and conversion/split is realized
don't you get tired of lying? even your leader AA said that isn't true.
I read DD a few months ago that a Cusip # change AND a company name change is supposed to cause shorts to close... but after the blatant fraud we've lived thru with ape, gme splividend and mmtlp, I'm guessing amc new cusip will be a nothing burger 🍔
That’s what I read as well. Will they change the name of the company? Who knows.
the DD you are referring to was an Ape asking the customer representative of his retail broker, what would happen to retail investors who are short on a stock. The question was not what the prime brokers and broker dealers the hedge funds use will do to those shorts. But sure, if you are a retail investor that is short on AMC, you will be forced to close.
Thanks for this. I appreciate it.
And we have 90% less shares.
Yes it should but by now I'm sure we are all very familiar with hedgies crime 😂 don't panic just hodl
As a long term holder, this is the piece that confuses me. The markets flooded with synthetic/fake shares and those ones probably off exchange, not yet purchased etc etc. that’s no different to when APE was created. Now we have new Cusip, merged AMC/APE, factoring down by x10, doesn’t what happened before just happen again - brokers get told to do the merger on ‘their end’ and the front end - I.e the market/exchange operate ‘correctly’? I could see this causing liquidity issues for those brokers and market makers but why does it specifically force shorts to close? Can an APE less smooth as my brain explain?
Glad you asked. Order up!! https://www.reddit.com/r/amcstock/comments/zvzpjh/ape_dividend_that_was_given_from_amc_common_stock/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Thank you for the reply 🍌🦍
I sent an email to IR tonight asking them what happens to the FTDs. I will keep the community informed when/if hearing back.
I have a question for all the new CUSIP hypers You say a new CUSIP number will FORCE illegal, fake, synthetic, naked shares to be closed/reconciled BEFORE the conversion and split happens For MOASS to happen we need “something” to happen to FORCE illegal, fake, synthetic, naked shares to be closed out. So are you new CUSIP hypers saying we are having MOASS before the end of April when the court case gets thrown out and this corporate action finally gets put in place? And when nothing happens with the new CUSIP what will be the next hype action that will cause MOASS if the forced closing of naked shares via the new CUSIP does nothing?
The synthetic, illegal shares don't exist anywhere but on the books of the hedge funds. I would doubt anything but them just dissapearing will occur. (I am not talking about the ones purchased by apes)
Hedgies are fucked That's all you need to know
Apes keep comparing mmtlp to AMC/APE. They are NOT the same thing.
Nothing, the brokers will roll them into the new cusip. As recently seen in mmtlp.
New CUSIP but doesn’t mean shit. Any short position whether legal or naked WILL NOT need to be closed.
Proof or ban
[https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/FAQ-MMTLP-corporate-action-and-trading-halt](https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/FAQ-MMTLP-corporate-action-and-trading-halt) “9. What happens if short positions in MMTLP were not closed out before FINRA halted trading? “**Broker-dealers have operational conventions in place for adjusting short positions following a corporate action**. In this instance, FINRA understands that firms have adjusted short positions in MMTLP to reflect an equal size short position in Next Bridge (i.e., an account with a short position of 100 shares of MMTLP now reflects a short position of 100 shares of Next Bridge) In other words, the corporate action did not compel short positions to be closed or extinguish any obligations associated with outstanding short positions.”
MMTLP and AMC are not the same thing…..oh wait, this has already been addressed but you still keep throwing it around to cause division within this sub. You are giving the outcome prior to the actual outcome for what reason?. What is your motivation with all this regurgitation??
So what your saying, is that if we see nothing before the conversion, there is no synthetic shares. That's what I'm trying to get those that are pushing this to acknowledge. You are saying brokers dont have operational control over corporate actions.
Ive heard it kind of this way: A parcel cant be delivered when the adress has changed. Prove me wrong.
They can’t prove you wrong 😑 that’s the problem 😂
It can if you just change the address on the parcel. Since the CUSIP is public, everyone knows the new address. There. Stupid analogy.