3 ms·

You can get more the 100% without naked shorts, sure, but is that legal?, does SEC allow that?, nobody is concerned that if there is a short squeeze there is no

You can get more the 100% without naked shorts, sure, but is that legal?, does SEC allow that?, nobody is concerned that if there is a short squeeze there is no chance in hell to close out? (like we are seeing here) The point I tried to make was - this short was done to drive price down to zero (it can do that with that large of a position) in collusion with negative media reports from friends... That is manipulation. And they got caught with their pants down. I'm also not convinced on no naked shorts, we'll see... As for robinhoods closure of trade, they only disabled buy, not sale... as for reason, are you speculating? I did not see any clearing house comment. This was brought up by Cuomo as well in interview. As for illegal on robinhoods part, we'll see, there will likely be an investigation. Especially since they are owned by the company that bailed Melvin Capital out.

andylei 6y ago
> You can get more the 100% without naked shorts, sure, but is that legal?, does SEC allow that? Yes. As someone lending out a share (for someone else to short), you can't know whether the person you bought it from had borrowed it to sell it to you. Let's say you bought a share of stock. Can you lend it to someone for them to short sell? Of course. You own the share, regardless of how many people it passed through to get to you.
realmod 6y ago
The same director noted that the SI%, according to their way of calculating*, is actually at 55% (still very high). And like the poster below stated, one cannot really know the difference between a borrowed and "ordinary" stock . Webull came out and clearly stated that their clearinghouse had issues with putting up collateral for the tickers and thus had to shut them down [0]. And while Robinhood has not come out directly and said it was due to liquidity, one can easily gather that from the statements they put out, the new funding they needed, and lastly the fact that DTCC required higher collateral for those tickers. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/gamestop-trading-restrictions-blamed-on-wall-streets-clearing-firm-by-online-broker-11611867105 https://www.wsj.com/articles/gamestop-trading-restrictions-b... * It includes all tradeable share. So in the case of the example, normal SI% states 2:1, two shorters and one original share. Their way is 2:3 which is, 2 shorters (B,D) and 3 longs (A,C,E)
- adriancr 6y ago
  > And while Robinhood has not come out directly So you were speculating on robinhood reason. > The same director noted that the SI%, according to their way of calculation, is actually at 55% Thanks, I'll check that out, weird since there are contradicting stories likely due to that short positions are not disclosed.
UncleMeat 6y ago
Imagine an alternative universe. WSB decides that shorting some company they hate is a good idea. But wait, it has already been shorted up to 99% by hedge funds! No more shorting allowed. SEC rules. Same backlash about a "rigged" system.
- adriancr 6y ago
  You are aware everyone else except retail was allowed to buy right? You are aware hedge funds did just that after doing wash sales to trigger stop losses. It was funny at one point bid ask spread was 120-5000
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Yes that's what I'm saying. The same narrative ("wtf, they are allowed to short but I'm not") arises in my scenario.
    - adriancr 6y ago
      your scenario means everyone is disallowed from shorting. Equal measure to market condition. You see it being different from disallowing just retail buying? Oh and that already exists when there are no shares to borrow. (in theory as they can naked short)

andylei 6y ago

> You can get more the 100% without naked shorts, sure, but is that legal?, does SEC allow that? Yes. As someone lending out a share (for someone else to short), you can't know whether the person you bought it from had borrowed it to sell it to you. Let's say you bought a share of stock. Can you lend it to someone for them to short sell? Of course. You own the share, regardless of how many people it passed through to get to you.

realmod 6y ago

The same director noted that the SI%, according to their way of calculating*, is actually at 55% (still very high). And like the poster below stated, one cannot really know the difference between a borrowed and "ordinary" stock . Webull came out and clearly stated that their clearinghouse had issues with putting up collateral for the tickers and thus had to shut them down [0]. And while Robinhood has not come out directly and said it was due to liquidity, one can easily gather that from the statements they put out, the new funding they needed, and lastly the fact that DTCC required higher collateral for those tickers. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/gamestop-trading-restrictions-blamed-on-wall-streets-clearing-firm-by-online-broker-11611867105 https://www.wsj.com/articles/gamestop-trading-restrictions-b... * It includes all tradeable share. So in the case of the example, normal SI% states 2:1, two shorters and one original share. Their way is 2:3 which is, 2 shorters (B,D) and 3 longs (A,C,E)

adriancr 6y ago
> And while Robinhood has not come out directly So you were speculating on robinhood reason. > The same director noted that the SI%, according to their way of calculation, is actually at 55% Thanks, I'll check that out, weird since there are contradicting stories likely due to that short positions are not disclosed.

UncleMeat 6y ago

Imagine an alternative universe. WSB decides that shorting some company they hate is a good idea. But wait, it has already been shorted up to 99% by hedge funds! No more shorting allowed. SEC rules. Same backlash about a "rigged" system.

adriancr 6y ago
You are aware everyone else except retail was allowed to buy right? You are aware hedge funds did just that after doing wash sales to trigger stop losses. It was funny at one point bid ask spread was 120-5000
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  Yes that's what I'm saying. The same narrative ("wtf, they are allowed to short but I'm not") arises in my scenario.
  - adriancr 6y ago
    your scenario means everyone is disallowed from shorting. Equal measure to market condition. You see it being different from disallowing just retail buying? Oh and that already exists when there are no shares to borrow. (in theory as they can naked short)