3 ms·

Not sure what I'm missing here I'm currently awaiting 9 February for the shorts interest to be released, to see if they are right or wrong. I think it's really

Not sure what I'm missing here I'm currently awaiting 9 February for the shorts interest to be released, to see if they are right or wrong. I think it's really interesting what's happening/happened. I'm not sure if I see a fallacy, that if you can hold a squeeze that another squeeze could happen if enough shorts stay open. Anyone can elaborate on that? Taking into account that shorting costs money ( 30% interest at a certain moment, mentioned by S3 partners ), people can hold longer than shorts. And buying them would make the available pool to buy back much smaller. What is wrong with that theory? It's similar to cornering the market ( if the stocks aren't tradeable again by the brokers) and GME doesn't have that much shares. Ps. Only put some play money in it, practically nothing. Just curious what the odds are. And I don't think I'm a meme guy, but to my perception there is logic in it. ( Eg. I'm not buying conspiracy theories about RH, because the flow was logical that they just needed money. ). For reference, Data from an stock analysis firm https://twitter.com/ihors3?s=09 https://twitter.com/ihors3?s=09

majormajor 6y ago
Before it was February 9 it was last Friday... ;) > Taking into account that shorting costs money, people can hold longer than shorts. And buying them would make the available pool to buy back much smaller. The volume being traded has been incredibly high, the available pool to buy hasn't been small. More than the total number of outstanding shares has traded per day over the last 10 days. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics The short interest likely isn't constant, either. Some people probably got out and took a bath on old positions, and others got in with new ones when it was super high. Anyone who started shorting at 300 or 400 is feeling pretty good.
- servercobra 6y ago
  > More than the total number of outstanding shares has traded per day over the last 10 days. This is important, but more important is what percent of those were used to cover shorts. If a large portion wind up in retail's hands or are part of the theory of hedge funds selling back and forth (I haven't seen much concrete evidence of that), that volume doesn't change the math much.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > This is important, but more important is what percent of those were used to cover shorts. If a large portion wind up in retail's hands or are part of the theory of hedge funds selling back and forth (I haven't seen much concrete evidence of that), that volume doesn't change the math much. Definitely, but I haven't seen any data sources that tell us exactly that. We see that retail bought a bunch, sold a bunch, institutions bought a bunch, sold a bunch... but we don't know the full path. And not knowing that is what makes it a huge, at-this-point-irresponsible gamble, in my mind.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  It was always 9 february to me: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=shortintpubsch http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=shortintpubsch ( see Dissemination date) That's an official date to release short interest. And I don't disagree with feeling good with shorting at 300-400. But none of the info you just gave me invalidates my reasoning. Considering there were 139% shorts which is way higher than the normally available pool, which we'll see on the 9th February ( as stated before)
  - majormajor 6y ago
    Not even the lack of people holding? Tons of people were selling throughout the 1/29 settlement date for that short interest, there wasn't an unavailability of shares. If you weren't one of the people selling then, I'm not seeing what would make it better in the future. edit: we may be talking about different things here. You're suggesting that if there are still funds very exposed on shorts in the info disclosed 2/9, then there's a potential for trying to make the stock rally again later this month? Vs that anything is already due this month? (I'm just skeptical still because the turnover is so high - I doubt the remaining interest has as high exposure cause I would guess they got in at higher prices.)
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      Why do you try to get personal? As said before, I don't care about when to sell or buy, my financial interest in it is way too low too care about it. I just think it's interesting and try to learn from it ( that's the only reason why I even bought a little, to keep me interested). What's your formula to state a lack of people holding vs. the amount of shorts that were outstanding? I don't see how you can easily come to that conclusion with 139% shorts outstanding at a certain moment. If the amount of shorts were lessened to 50%, which we'll know on 9 February i can agree. But I can't know for sure now and i want to know with what logic "you can" be sure. Edit: Yes, I'm suggesting that there are "possibly" still a large amount of shorts and that I can't know till 9 February to see what could happen. If the amount of shorts is low, than GME will continue to drop to a normal value. If it's high, it depends on when the shorts were initiated, so it's still unclear then. There's just a higher possibility to dismiss a potential squeeze on the 9th of February. So I'm looking for additional info why people can already dismiss this reasoning. Edit 2: ( can't reply on your comment) I agree, there's a lot of uncertainty in it... A lot of "unknowns" for now. I'm just careful dismissing it as a pure meme though. Since I can't fully dismiss it as such and I'm open to additional info surrounding this ( hence my original question).
- op00to 6y ago
  Cue “but it was always Feb 9” ignoring that Jan 29 was “dday” before that. Then after Feb 9 it’ll be some later date in case there’s still tubes to fleece.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    ? 9 february is the date the short numbers are released for publication. Why would it be 29 january? It's not a final date either, it's a date that more is known and people can act on that info. You can always check the link I gave to see why... Since you obviously didn't.
    - op00to 6y ago
      How’d it go?

majormajor 6y ago

Before it was February 9 it was last Friday... ;) > Taking into account that shorting costs money, people can hold longer than shorts. And buying them would make the available pool to buy back much smaller. The volume being traded has been incredibly high, the available pool to buy hasn't been small. More than the total number of outstanding shares has traded per day over the last 10 days. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GME/key-statistics The short interest likely isn't constant, either. Some people probably got out and took a bath on old positions, and others got in with new ones when it was super high. Anyone who started shorting at 300 or 400 is feeling pretty good.

servercobra 6y ago
> More than the total number of outstanding shares has traded per day over the last 10 days. This is important, but more important is what percent of those were used to cover shorts. If a large portion wind up in retail's hands or are part of the theory of hedge funds selling back and forth (I haven't seen much concrete evidence of that), that volume doesn't change the math much.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > This is important, but more important is what percent of those were used to cover shorts. If a large portion wind up in retail's hands or are part of the theory of hedge funds selling back and forth (I haven't seen much concrete evidence of that), that volume doesn't change the math much. Definitely, but I haven't seen any data sources that tell us exactly that. We see that retail bought a bunch, sold a bunch, institutions bought a bunch, sold a bunch... but we don't know the full path. And not knowing that is what makes it a huge, at-this-point-irresponsible gamble, in my mind.
NicoJuicy 6y ago
It was always 9 february to me: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=shortintpubsch http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=shortintpubsch ( see Dissemination date) That's an official date to release short interest. And I don't disagree with feeling good with shorting at 300-400. But none of the info you just gave me invalidates my reasoning. Considering there were 139% shorts which is way higher than the normally available pool, which we'll see on the 9th February ( as stated before)
- majormajor 6y ago
  Not even the lack of people holding? Tons of people were selling throughout the 1/29 settlement date for that short interest, there wasn't an unavailability of shares. If you weren't one of the people selling then, I'm not seeing what would make it better in the future. edit: we may be talking about different things here. You're suggesting that if there are still funds very exposed on shorts in the info disclosed 2/9, then there's a potential for trying to make the stock rally again later this month? Vs that anything is already due this month? (I'm just skeptical still because the turnover is so high - I doubt the remaining interest has as high exposure cause I would guess they got in at higher prices.)
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Why do you try to get personal? As said before, I don't care about when to sell or buy, my financial interest in it is way too low too care about it. I just think it's interesting and try to learn from it ( that's the only reason why I even bought a little, to keep me interested). What's your formula to state a lack of people holding vs. the amount of shorts that were outstanding? I don't see how you can easily come to that conclusion with 139% shorts outstanding at a certain moment. If the amount of shorts were lessened to 50%, which we'll know on 9 February i can agree. But I can't know for sure now and i want to know with what logic "you can" be sure. Edit: Yes, I'm suggesting that there are "possibly" still a large amount of shorts and that I can't know till 9 February to see what could happen. If the amount of shorts is low, than GME will continue to drop to a normal value. If it's high, it depends on when the shorts were initiated, so it's still unclear then. There's just a higher possibility to dismiss a potential squeeze on the 9th of February. So I'm looking for additional info why people can already dismiss this reasoning. Edit 2: ( can't reply on your comment) I agree, there's a lot of uncertainty in it... A lot of "unknowns" for now. I'm just careful dismissing it as a pure meme though. Since I can't fully dismiss it as such and I'm open to additional info surrounding this ( hence my original question).
op00to 6y ago
Cue “but it was always Feb 9” ignoring that Jan 29 was “dday” before that. Then after Feb 9 it’ll be some later date in case there’s still tubes to fleece.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  ? 9 february is the date the short numbers are released for publication. Why would it be 29 january? It's not a final date either, it's a date that more is known and people can act on that info. You can always check the link I gave to see why... Since you obviously didn't.
  - op00to 6y ago
    How’d it go?