seems interesting in which they 'debunk' naked short selling and then explicitly provide information contradicting it in the same report.
-
-
Replying to @jasagaxbt
maybe i'm not following, how does that confirm the theory?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @drewg__
definition of naked short selling per Investopedia is, "Naked shorting is the illegal practice of short selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist." if short interest is reported to be more than the whole float, as is/was the case...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasagaxbt @drewg__
then that is exactly the definition of naked short selling. selling shares that don't exist (i.e. the amount percentage wise over the available float, as described in the report.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasagaxbt
I would urge you to research rehypothecation, this is the phenomenon which causes short interest to occasionally show >100%. This is a perfectly ordinary thing, read the below for a primer.pic.twitter.com/Za2p5Dr1Jo
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @drewg__ @jasagaxbt
Sherstock Holmes Retweeted Lucy Komisar
What is perfectly normal about a stock over 100% short? Care to debunk?https://twitter.com/LucyKomisar/status/1450244491361783809 …
Sherstock Holmes added,
Lucy Komisar @LucyKomisarReplying to @dlauerSEC says same shares lent multiple times. Exactly the problem. If shorter didn’t borrow & buyer lends out entitlement, 2 shares = 1 real, 1 counterfeit. Plus, loan may be a “synthetic” options creation, also fake. And on and on. Look up rehypothecation. (Lehman Bros London 2008)2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HiiighKevin @jasagaxbt
I'm saying the mechanism that makes it possible is normal, there's nothing sinister about rehypothecation per se. It's true that GME was unusually highly shorted, but that had nothing to do with market structure and more to do with the business fundamentals specific to GME
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @drewg__ @jasagaxbt
The current market structure allows this practice through the DTCC because of deregulation. Citadel was already banned from trading in China for 5 years for “malicious short selling” and “market manipulation”. If US regulatory loopholes didnt exist would >100% SI been allowed?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HiiighKevin @jasagaxbt
Yes, if securities laws were completely different then certain activities would become illegal, that is how the law works. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My point is merely that rehypothecation is perfectly normal under current law and that the SEC found nothing wrong
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
it isn’t worth engaging
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Trying to do my best in good faith! Hopefully I am rewarded with the same 


-
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.