8 ms·

I'm not sure if you responded to the wrong comment, but you're talking about a whole bunch of stuff that's not relevant to my comment at all: > Failure to deli

I'm not sure if you responded to the wrong comment, but you're talking about a whole bunch of stuff that's not relevant to my comment at all: > Failure to deliver or percentage of float shared above 100% is not evidence of naked short selling. I never said it was. > The "take it from the rich" narrative is complete nonsense. I never mentioned this. > I honestly don't care if somebody makes a little bit of money on your way out. No one made money on my way out, I've made about a 20% return on GME. > You had it coming. Gamestop had it coming. You sound angry and spiteful for some reason, not sure where that's coming from. > It's curious how the same company that would give you $15 in store credit on a trade-in of a new game is now the darling of retail traders. Ok, what are you talking about? There is one relevant thing you said at least: > Almost certainly not, more likely it's just a story they want you to believe so they can pump-and-dump Gamestop. Almost certainly not? GME was shorted 140%. They absolutely certainly shorted more shares than actually exist. How can you short 100% of the float, then continue shorting more? I never said it had to be naked, I said they shorted more shares than exist. That's unequivocally true, no one is even trying to argue otherwise (except you, for some reason, maybe because you lost money shorting GME?).

incrudible 6y ago
> I'm not sure if you responded to the wrong comment, but you're talking about a whole bunch of stuff that's not relevant to my comment It's all relevant to the broader argument. The link you posted mentions failure-to-deliver. > No one made money on my way out, I've made about a 20% return on GME. Good for you, but I'm talking about the general practice shorting a company that is about to go bankrupt. If you're willing to take the (apparently not insignificant) risk of going short on such a company, I'm fine with you taking those profits. I don't consider that "immoral". > You sound angry and spiteful for some reason, not sure where that's coming from. I'm not angry, but I do have some spite about Gamestop. The company sucks. Everybody always agreed the company sucks. Now a lot of people - perhaps not you - are acting as if the company is somehow good, that it can be turned around, that they "like the stock". That's all bullshit. If people were just honest about being in a casino and betting on "squeeze", that'd be totally fine. > Almost certainly not? GME was shorted 140%. They absolutely certainly shorted more shares than actually exist. How can you short 100% of the float, then continue shorting more? There is one number calculated in a particular way that reported short interest as 140%. So far so good. Everything else is an interpretation of that number that is not necessarily reflecting reality. https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-have-short-interest-over-100-heres/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-ha... If you take synthetic longs out of the equation, the number drops to well below 100%: https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1354847896173240322 https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1354847896173240322 Still good enough for a major short squeeze, of course. In fact, all of the "most shorted" stocks in the S&P experienced a short squeeze alongside with Gamestop. FYI, I pretty much never open a short position in the hopes of turning a profit, I only use it to hedge other positions. You know, like a proper hedge fund.
- viklove 6y ago
  > If you take synthetic longs out of the equation, the number drops to well below 100%: "If you don't count the shares shorted over 100%, there are no shares shorted over 100%!" I really feel like you don't know what you're talking about.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    Isn't your implication of "shorted above 100%" that there are shares that don't exist that need to be bought back? With synthetic longs, that just isn't the case. If that isn't the case, then what's the issue with percentage of float shorted above 100%? I'll tell you: There simply is no issue here, it's just an accounting curiosity. Now, perhaps you aren't making that argument, but the person writing the blog post for this comment thread is making that argument. It's used to convince clueless people that if only everyone holds on to their shares, they need to be bought back at practically any price. It's just not true. If indeed you aren't making that argument, then I don't really get your point.

incrudible 6y ago

> I'm not sure if you responded to the wrong comment, but you're talking about a whole bunch of stuff that's not relevant to my comment It's all relevant to the broader argument. The link you posted mentions failure-to-deliver. > No one made money on my way out, I've made about a 20% return on GME. Good for you, but I'm talking about the general practice shorting a company that is about to go bankrupt. If you're willing to take the (apparently not insignificant) risk of going short on such a company, I'm fine with you taking those profits. I don't consider that "immoral". > You sound angry and spiteful for some reason, not sure where that's coming from. I'm not angry, but I do have some spite about Gamestop. The company sucks. Everybody always agreed the company sucks. Now a lot of people - perhaps not you - are acting as if the company is somehow good, that it can be turned around, that they "like the stock". That's all bullshit. If people were just honest about being in a casino and betting on "squeeze", that'd be totally fine. > Almost certainly not? GME was shorted 140%. They absolutely certainly shorted more shares than actually exist. How can you short 100% of the float, then continue shorting more? There is one number calculated in a particular way that reported short interest as 140%. So far so good. Everything else is an interpretation of that number that is not necessarily reflecting reality. https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-have-short-interest-over-100-heres/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-ha... If you take synthetic longs out of the equation, the number drops to well below 100%: https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1354847896173240322 https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1354847896173240322 Still good enough for a major short squeeze, of course. In fact, all of the "most shorted" stocks in the S&P experienced a short squeeze alongside with Gamestop. FYI, I pretty much never open a short position in the hopes of turning a profit, I only use it to hedge other positions. You know, like a proper hedge fund.

viklove 6y ago
> If you take synthetic longs out of the equation, the number drops to well below 100%: "If you don't count the shares shorted over 100%, there are no shares shorted over 100%!" I really feel like you don't know what you're talking about.
- incrudible 6y ago
  Isn't your implication of "shorted above 100%" that there are shares that don't exist that need to be bought back? With synthetic longs, that just isn't the case. If that isn't the case, then what's the issue with percentage of float shorted above 100%? I'll tell you: There simply is no issue here, it's just an accounting curiosity. Now, perhaps you aren't making that argument, but the person writing the blog post for this comment thread is making that argument. It's used to convince clueless people that if only everyone holds on to their shares, they need to be bought back at practically any price. It's just not true. If indeed you aren't making that argument, then I don't really get your point.