I admit I’m a retard so go easy on me. So the gist is there are more stocks owned than are reported? Since our justice system shows a complete disregard for illegal activities especially where Wall Street is concerned, is this really a problem? Or will it implode even without any scrutiny by the judicial system?
soy - the issue is that the insiders and market makers in stocks have been conducting naked short selling for years now. Meaning they are selling shares they not only never owned, but didn't even borrow from anyone else who did own them. They have sold them as accounting entries to their client counterparties without those shares ever existing in the first place.
As long as the price remains stable enough that they can later buy them back and cover their shorts, and they did such things only in modest volumes, that wasn't too much of an issue. But in some of these short squeeze stocks, the "longs" caught on and bought up tons of the available shares and are refusing to sell them for anything short of "the moon". The naked short sellers firms then fought them, trying to force the share prices to go down by flooding the market with new fake shares. In the process they ballooned to net short 140% of the outstanding "float", and they cannot possible cover such huge (fraudulently created and entered) positions.
They deserve to lose everything they own, as firms, for having pulled that stunt. Desperate to avoid that fair outcome, they are instead now trying to buy the regulators, close the markets, prevent trading by bribing other brokers and processing firms, demanding government intervention to save them, and similar illegal and coercive nonsense.
The thing everyone should be asking is how it was even possible for the short sellers to enter positions that were net short 140% of the total outstanding float. The answer is there was and is no honest way for that to happen - any more than there is any honest way to win an election via 140% turnout.
I may let go of my handful of GME shares once I have a Maserati sitting in the driveway that I purchased at the bankruptcy auction of a hedge fund manager billionaire. Until then, it is money I can afford to lose, since I never had it to begin with.
Knowing that Griffin, Both Cohens, and likely a couple of other Democrat-owning billionaires could be homeless over this warms my wallet.
This is mostly correct and a very good job of simplification.
Add in a bit about leverage, margin maintenance requirements, and rehypothecation and you'l paint the whole picture.
The reason I said "mostly" correct is that an argument can be made for leverage being capable of creating greater than a 140% short ratio. It entails a ton of risk, and every party involved is aware of the rules and the risks of leverage. They are just trying to not have to pay for their mistakes and they'll argue systemic counter-party risk.
You can certainly argue that the current regulations are insufficient to protect from this type of manipulation, but it is certainly possible under the current regime.
It's something they absolutely couldn't just sweep under the rug. If they did it would give them future license to do it again, which also means that people can do again what they're doing now, which would mean they'd have to bailout wallstreet over and over and over for hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions. Democrats may like to make other people money and sell out our country, but they want some money for themselves too, and when wallstreet wants a huge chunk or more in a year than the federal government even gains in revenue, those are numbers even they can't reconcile with.
Yes. According to the BIS there are over $800 trillion in outstanding derivatives, and the number is about 3x that if you include synthetic trades. Almost 1/3 of that is interest rate swaps.
They argue that their net exposure is close to zero, but when your counter-parties start taking massive losses, everyone has to raise margin requirements and then the route is on. Net exposure becomes gross exposure very quickly. This is Bear Stearns on steroids.
It is entirely likely that this is part of the plan for the World Economic Forum's Great Reset.
For clarification, after re-reading our posts, I'm not necessarily saying that WSB was part of their plan so much as that they have a plan to implode the markets (create a crisis) and then step in with their ready-made "solution" that somehow always looks a lot like a Dictatorship.
Their desperation in combatting the WSB Squeeze (that deserves capitalization) in the open in a blatantly illegal manner would seem to support your opinion.
I just think they're devious enough to have concocted the whole thing, so I'm keeping that possibility open.
I admit I’m a retard so go easy on me. So the gist is there are more stocks owned than are reported? Since our justice system shows a complete disregard for illegal activities especially where Wall Street is concerned, is this really a problem? Or will it implode even without any scrutiny by the judicial system?
soy - the issue is that the insiders and market makers in stocks have been conducting naked short selling for years now. Meaning they are selling shares they not only never owned, but didn't even borrow from anyone else who did own them. They have sold them as accounting entries to their client counterparties without those shares ever existing in the first place.
As long as the price remains stable enough that they can later buy them back and cover their shorts, and they did such things only in modest volumes, that wasn't too much of an issue. But in some of these short squeeze stocks, the "longs" caught on and bought up tons of the available shares and are refusing to sell them for anything short of "the moon". The naked short sellers firms then fought them, trying to force the share prices to go down by flooding the market with new fake shares. In the process they ballooned to net short 140% of the outstanding "float", and they cannot possible cover such huge (fraudulently created and entered) positions.
They deserve to lose everything they own, as firms, for having pulled that stunt. Desperate to avoid that fair outcome, they are instead now trying to buy the regulators, close the markets, prevent trading by bribing other brokers and processing firms, demanding government intervention to save them, and similar illegal and coercive nonsense.
The thing everyone should be asking is how it was even possible for the short sellers to enter positions that were net short 140% of the total outstanding float. The answer is there was and is no honest way for that to happen - any more than there is any honest way to win an election via 140% turnout.
I may let go of my handful of GME shares once I have a Maserati sitting in the driveway that I purchased at the bankruptcy auction of a hedge fund manager billionaire. Until then, it is money I can afford to lose, since I never had it to begin with.
Knowing that Griffin, Both Cohens, and likely a couple of other Democrat-owning billionaires could be homeless over this warms my wallet.
Best explanation yet.
Yep, naked shorting should be, and should have been for a while, a go to jail activity.
This is mostly correct and a very good job of simplification.
Add in a bit about leverage, margin maintenance requirements, and rehypothecation and you'l paint the whole picture.
The reason I said "mostly" correct is that an argument can be made for leverage being capable of creating greater than a 140% short ratio. It entails a ton of risk, and every party involved is aware of the rules and the risks of leverage. They are just trying to not have to pay for their mistakes and they'll argue systemic counter-party risk.
You can certainly argue that the current regulations are insufficient to protect from this type of manipulation, but it is certainly possible under the current regime.
Whatever happened to Creative Destruction?
This seems like a good place to put this:
If you want a resource for more information on Naked Short Selling, here's a link to the guy who knows more about it than anyone:
http://www.buyins.com/images/tomronk.pdf
It's something they absolutely couldn't just sweep under the rug. If they did it would give them future license to do it again, which also means that people can do again what they're doing now, which would mean they'd have to bailout wallstreet over and over and over for hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions. Democrats may like to make other people money and sell out our country, but they want some money for themselves too, and when wallstreet wants a huge chunk or more in a year than the federal government even gains in revenue, those are numbers even they can't reconcile with.
Yes. According to the BIS there are over $800 trillion in outstanding derivatives, and the number is about 3x that if you include synthetic trades. Almost 1/3 of that is interest rate swaps.
They argue that their net exposure is close to zero, but when your counter-parties start taking massive losses, everyone has to raise margin requirements and then the route is on. Net exposure becomes gross exposure very quickly. This is Bear Stearns on steroids.
It is entirely likely that this is part of the plan for the World Economic Forum's Great Reset.
mostly agree, but no way is the WSB squeeze part of any "great reset" plan. This totally upset the plan.
For clarification, after re-reading our posts, I'm not necessarily saying that WSB was part of their plan so much as that they have a plan to implode the markets (create a crisis) and then step in with their ready-made "solution" that somehow always looks a lot like a Dictatorship.
Their desperation in combatting the WSB Squeeze (that deserves capitalization) in the open in a blatantly illegal manner would seem to support your opinion.
I just think they're devious enough to have concocted the whole thing, so I'm keeping that possibility open.
You are likely correct.