/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>29333128
Nah I already took that into account.

https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355969693841051650
After Jan 29th trading day to Feb 1st one. The 122% number is derived from their 55% number. 55/45 = 122%
https://twitter.com/S3Partners/status/1356392101806800897
Feb 1st "S3 SI Float" was 34.71%
Normal definition SI was 53.15%
34.71/65.29 = ~53.16%

So they went from from 122% public SI to 53.15% over the course of that monday. While the price was crashing hard.

>>29056678
pro-china people don't think they do it
and actually they really don't. it's a retarded CIA/NED OP. The only thing China is guilty of is saving Uighurs from poverty and an ISIS style caliphate erecting itself in Xinjiang.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/

>>28905086
.0635
screenshot this.

>>28218565
>getting in CLF
>horrible fundamentals. under 15% short
The only other of the horsemen of the squeezepocalypse that seems like it's heading for an actual squeeze is Ligand Pharmaceuticals. LGND, which was over 100% shorted january 14 and now has price targets between 215 and 300USD because they managed to turn their business around. Shorters were simply wrong. It is currently 213.63

Unlike BBBY, FIZZ, FUBO, AMC, it has decoupled heavily from GME and is heading higher and higher on its own. The shorts are absolutely gefucked on LGND.

I'll explain 1 of the tricks, and I think this trick is in use since at least monday last week when the short interest % went down and price went down on too low volume to do so inexplicably, while short volume was high that day.

The tricks:
No more naked shorting. Naked sell maybe also potentially naked cover.
Naked sell: You don't even pretend to have borrowed a share. You simply sell a share as if you have it, when you don't.
Naked cover: You "return" a share that you don't have to a borrower.
The problem is, you have to settle those shares by settlement time, which is 3 days. You are effectively stealth short against the stock with a 3 day settlement time. How do you avoid a massive amount of Failed To Deliver shares that exposes your true short position?

There are ways to juggle that debt of shares in order for your ruse to not be discovered. One of this is by buying shares later within the 3 day period to deliver them.
But that would cause buy pressure, right? Stonk would go up. So unless there is mass capitulation among the longs and they are selling as much as you need to buy at decreasing or stable price, you risk pushing the price upwards again, turning the stonk sentiment bullish and putting your short positions deeper into the red.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/lbpzl1/surprise_surprise_im_not_selling_a_damn_thing_the/glvcp7i?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

20210202|GME|16358136|1073011|29733410|
That's short volume|shortexemptvolume|total volume
Supposedly, during that day, according to S3 data, the shorts erased north of 60 of their short interest %. Float is 46.89M. 46.89M * 0.6 = 28.134M shorts covered during monday.

28.134M shorts covered with a non-short volume of 10.7M. That 10.7M shares is all that traded that day besides shorting. There was 16.35M done in shorting that day. Monday was net short by minimum 16.35-10.7 = 5.65M, probably north of 10m (assuming every single transaction of the 10.7M was buys to cover shorts, which definitely did not happen). Then how does short% plummet from 122% (post-friday number) to the mid 50s? Short% should have increased.
By covering with shares they don't have and shorting with shares they don't have. They don't have to settle the trades until 3 days have gone by, after all. They might as well try 1 last ditch effort to make longs capitulate and sell out en-masse, they probably thought.

They have already had big failed to deliver events since at least December. Sometimes even 1-2%, which is just the tip of the goldberg of actually naked sells and covers they are churning within the 3 day settlement period. This time the failed to deliver might be in the 10s of millions of shares, which means it could be in the 20-50% range of total float failing to deliver depending on how well they hide it with hedgie churning magic.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/kr98ym/gme_gang_we_need_to_complain_about_naked_short/

This is probably the biggest securities fraud scandal of our lifetime. We will get to witness the biggest Failed to Deliver proof of stock counterfeiting in terms of dollar value of stonk there has ever been.

Read this thread for elaborations on the mechanisms involved. >>27590984

It is true that it is Short Restricted. I looked for myself. https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse-arca/notices
This would reduce the ability to dump the price.
The problem, however, is, that they are no longer "shorting". I will explain.

It is known due to their chronic Failure To Deliver problems that they have been naked shorting for a while, and likely using churning techniques to keep most of it perpetually hidden in the 3 days to settle time buffer.

However, on monday, something very interesting started to happened. The calls that expires in the money on Friday needed to be bought on Friday to be delivered. There was no sign of that buy pressure. Fidelity reported retail buying/selling has been heavily skewed to the buy side both monday and thursday.
Yet at the same time:
Price went down massively
The day ended with north of 60% of total float in shorts being covered.
The daily volume was just ~1.5x the amount of shorts supposedly being covered.

I have only seen one explanation that explains how these things are possible at the same time.

>>27479149
No. They are counterfeiting shares to "cover" and short more. Naked shorts, naked covers. They have to settle for monday trades on thursday. There's 3 days necessary. They will fail to deliver. Clearing houses will take their collateral and cover on their behalf, buying lots of GME at whatever price market sets, because they are responsible to deliver when there is a fail to deliver.

>>27452787
The owner of that site fell for the jewish trick.
copypasting explanating using the 55% example.
The real short according to S3 data was 53.15/46.85= ~113.45%.

The use a special definition of short interest % to lie without lying. https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355969693841051650

55% "S3 SI" example:
The real short % according to S3's data is 122%. However, their 55% figure is technically not a lie, but extremely misleading. I will explain everything.

Here is what they did:
Sources (S3 head):
https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355990194575564801?s=19
https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1356004816414269448
https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355969693841051650

S3 head is redefining share float to include shares that don't exist in order to be able to say shorted % of float is lower.

"Instead of Shares Shorted/Float our calc is Shares Shorted/ (Float + Shares Shorted)"

So, by this definition, if a stock is shorted 400% of existing shares (total banana count borrowed and resold 4x) and total shares is 100, short % is calculated like this:
400 shorts / (100 shares + 400 longs whose shares are borrowed) = 0.8
That is, the normal way we define short % would say it's 400% shorted. S3's way says 80%.

Knowing this formula, we can work back to what S3 would have said the short % of float was using the normal definition of short % of float:
55% short of float means for all existing shares + shorts (or, ont he other side of the trade "longs whose shares were borrowed away to short") is 55/45 as much as existing shares. Meaning, portion of shares short by the normal definition (% of existing bananas borrowed) is 55/45 = 1.22

That is, S3's data is telling them that after friday trading, GME is still 122% short.

https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355249817048522755
113.31%. This tweet was during the trading day Friday.

https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355969693841051650
This was data they calculated in the weekend, long after Friday trading had ended, and before market open today.
This 55% is by S3's special new definition:
"Instead of Shares Shorted/Float our calc is Shares Shorted/ (Float + Shares Shorted)"

This is 55/45 = 122% by the normal definition of Short Interest.

Meaning, despite most retailers not being allowed to buy, only allowed to sell, and despite the forced sells from some accounts, the short % increased between those two points in time.

2 hours ago, S3 head tweeted that new short is 53.15%, which means 53.15/46.85= ~113.45%

https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1356261806612885509

The real short % according to S3's data is 122%. However, their 55% figure is technically not a lie, but extremely misleading. I will explain everything.

Here is what they did:
Sources (S3 head):
https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355990194575564801?s=19
https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1356004816414269448
https://twitter.com/ihors3/status/1355969693841051650

S3 head is redefining share float to include shares that don't exist in order to be able to say shorted % of float is lower.

it reduces the traditional SI % Float, Instead of Shares Shorted/Float our calc is Shares Shorted/ (Float + Shares Shorted)

So, by this definition, if a stock is shorted 400% of existing shares (total banana count borrowed and resold 4x) and total shares is 100, short % is calculated like this:
400 shorts / (100 shares + 400 longs whose shares are borrowed) = 0.8
That is, the normal way we define short % would say it's 400% shorted. S3's way says 80%.

Knowing this formula, we can work back to what S3 would have said the short % of float was using the normal definition of short % of float:
55% short of float means for all existing shares + shorts (or, ont he other side of the trade "longs whose shares were borrowed away to short") is 55/45 as much as existing shares. Meaning, portion of shares short by the normal definition (% of existing bananas borrowed) is 55/45 = 1.22

That is, S3's data is telling them that after friday trading, GME is still 122% short.

If you want to make it big, you have to find undervalued coins that can 50x or more over the next half year and then reinvest a lot of it into undervalued again. I consider AMB one such coin. Idk about HPB is and child porn chain. VEN already reached high awareness so it might bleed or stay relatively stagnant for half a year if not more just like most coins that reach that level of hype and have price momentum stop.

If you're just seeking an average return of 3x in 4 months as you suggest, then yeah your portfolio is probably fine.

A couple of tips for moonshots:
Look into Hubii and Coinloan, do thorough research, especially on Hubii, which I consider the safest 100-500x by q1 2019 that I finished accumulating. I would mention more but they are not as safe and I am still accumulating.

Chainlink is also a pretty decent pick for one of your 50 dollars.

Ethereum is probably the absolutely safest 3x by 4 months but that's very boring.